- To our friends around the world...
- We have entered a very interesting and,
in some ways, scary stage in our struggle to bring truth to the world via
reporting on the Mannheim Holocaust Heresy Trial. On April 26, there
was yet another scheduled hearing. From the few scattered reports
I received, it was an extraordinary day! Please take this as a partial
summary because I don't know what it means and can only speculate.
- Here is what I was told:
- Ernst was represented by Dr. Schaller
and Attorney Bock. Jürgen Rieger was not present. The
two public defenders, who are on stand-by, so to speak, were present, as
were Sylvia Stolz and Horst Mahler - the latter two in the audience.
Again, many spectators filled the court room, but the security forces had
been reduced in numbers. Ernst was described as "looking good,
self-assured and vigorous." The prosecutor, Mr. Grossmann, was
not present; a substitute sat in for him.
- Dr. Meinerzhagen started by playing
a brief ZDF video clip that had been produced by a German television team
sometime in 1999, as I remember it. I lived at that time in San Diego;
Ernst was still in Canada. The reporters were a husband-wife couple,
nice and very open-minded, so I thought. After they filmed me, they
went on to interview Ernst at the Toronto Zundel-Haus, and Ernst told me
afterwards that the extended interview went very well indeed. Apparently,
when it was finally shown all over Germany, it was just a sound byte and
had become the usual tripe - the theme being "Neo-Nazis on the Net"
with voice-overs on just how "dangerously" the Zundelsite was
by hiding behind Freedom of Speech. Many of our supporters saw it
at the time, but it came and went, and there was absolutely no fallout.
I saw it as one of those "Let's scare the unwary..." productions.
I remember the reporters asking me about connections with the "skinheads"
and I told them that in my entire life I had never personally met a skinhead.
I told them skinhead were fabrications of a compliant media.
- This clip was now played in the courtroom
by having it projected against a white wall. One spectator called
it "nasty", two others thought it was the old, insignificant
baloney meant to scare the gullible.
- This was followed in the courtroom by
a broadcast that Ernst had done several years ago via a Russian radio station
from what used to be Königsberg, now called Kaliningrad. I remember
this story vaguely. Ernst had negotiated broadcast time with the
Russian owners and had been assured that the contract would hold, but as
it turned out, he was only allowed to broadcast twice before the Holocaust
Lobby aficionados leaned on the Russkys, twisted some arms - and the contract
was canceled on the spot. Dr. Meinerzhagen now allowed to play one
of these broadcasts in full - apparently lasting almost an hour.
I have never heard it, but it was described to me by three different people
in the courtroom as "simply fabulous" and "Ernst as his
best." Ernst addressed himself to the German people and explained
to them that their government system that passed itself off as a "democracy"
was, in fact, still a post-war occupation force brainwashing the public
with a false history and controlling every entity that mattered - including
the judiciary. One of the spectators, who had been in the courtroom
said to me: "I have no explanation. It was as though Judge
Meinerzhagen wanted to exonerate Ernst, rather than sentence him... Why
else would he have played it?"
- Next, without comment, Judge Meinerzhagen
read my Open Letter, dated February 8, 2006. Refresh your memory
- I published it in a previous Power Letter. We had had plans for
Sylvia Stolz to read this letter into the record, and we were prepared
that the Judge would not allow it to be read. Instead, to our great
surprise, he read it himself - and with emphasis and feeling!
- I am very proud of that letter;
I wrote and polished it for an entire week. In it, I called a spade
a spade. I feel I wrote respectfully but clearly. Ernst thought
that it was "very moving." Judge Meinerzhagen read it now,
and when he was through, he left without further comments, and the hearing
was over for the day.
- I have absolutely no idea what this
means. Does Dr. Meinerz-hagen want to juxtapose the distorted persona
of Ernst Zundel in the mainstream media with the real Ernst Zundel that
we know? One of the attorneys thought that I was too gullible to
think that; that it was a sinister ploy. According to his interpretation,
the idea is to link Ernst and myself as working in concert and in tandem,
and thus, by linking us, trying to criminalize not only Ernst but also
the Zundelsite and, indirectly, me that way. He thinks that the idea
is to not only have people but whole (EU?) countries gang up on my website!
In other words, censorship of an American website through the back door!
- (See German Embassy Press Release dated
April 18, 2006 below.)
- Meanwhile, I am still facing the question
as to what to do with Dr. Meinerzhagen's invitation to come to Germany
to testify. Ernst always chides me for being too trusting and for
having difficulty seeing the evil design of our political enemies' actions,
and he may have a point. At first, when I received that letter, I
reacted predictably and even joyfully, true to my nature - I thought this
was a golden opportunity to go to Germany and relieve some of the pressure
on Ernst by clarifying the facts of the ownership and operation of the
website. But when I put out the question on the Net and asked for
input as to what I should do, I received such a tsunami of horrified voices
telling me it was a trap and not to go, that I changed my mind and began
to distrust my own judgment. The consensus is firm that I absolutely
should not take the risk and walk into a prison situation! And I
know I will not do a video conference if I can help it - I have done hundreds
of video shows in the early years of my literary career, and I hated every
one of them with a passion! I get rattled and nervous and fiery red
in the face having a camera focused on me. I dislike it intensely
- I know I am much better in expressing my thoughts if I can do so in contemplative
- What will happen in the end is still
open, but I do have competent legal counsel, and I have instructed one
of my attorneys to draft a response stressing that I am an American citizen
protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment, and that I consider
the laws and conventions of Germany of no relevance to me. But I
must tell you that I am between a rock and a hard place - I fear that if
I refuse to answer at all, it will be construed as some "guilt"
on my part, and if I testify, I yield jurisdiction to Germany which I don't
need to do, even according to Dr. Meinerzhagen's letter. It may well
be that I won't have a choice, because according to a press release that
you can double-check on the US-based German Embassy website, dated 18 April
2006 (!), we now get this - imagine!
- German Minister of Justice Zypries and
US Attorney General Gonzales Sign Bilateral Agreements for Mutual Legal
- German Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries
and US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met today, April 18, for bilateral
talks on German-US judicial cooperation. Within the scope of those talks,
they signed two supplementary treaties to the German-US extradition treaty
of 1978 and to the bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty of 2003.
- "German and US authorities have
been working closely together in criminal prosecution for many years in
an atmosphere of mutual trust. Regrettably, the terrorist attacks of 11
September 2001 have clearly underscored the necessity for close cooperation
among criminal prosecution authorities. At the same time, we must continue
to be able to build upon a reliable legal foundation which allows both
sides to shape cooperation consistent with their constitutional law princi-ples,"
said Federal Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries.
- The supplementary treaties signed today
complement the existing bilateral agreements with regulations that had
been agreed upon by the EU Justice Ministers and are the subject of two
agreements concluded between the EU and the USA. The aim of these agreements
is to create harmonized contract-ual foundations for cooperation in criminal
matters between the USA and the Member States of the European Union, and
thereby modernize the existing bilateral agreements with a view toward
meeting the challenges of fighting terrorism and cross-border organized
- Minister Zypries said: "With the
supplementary treaties signed today, we are creating the conditions for
allowing the agreements on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters
and extradition concluded between the European Union and the USA to take
effect in relations between Germany and the USA as well."
- Extradition Treaty
- An extradition treaty has been in effect
between Germany and the USA since 1978. For both countries, it forms the
foundation for the extradition of individuals sought by the judicial authorities
of the other country for the purpose of criminal prosecution or enforcement
of sentence. The supplementary treaty signed today complements this treaty
- for example, with regulations involving protection of privacy. Unchanged
in the amended extradition treaty is that no individual sought will be
extradited from Germany to the USA if he is threatened there with the death
penalty. A precondition for every extradition is that the criminal offence
concerned is subject to criminal penalties both pursuant to the law of
the requested and the requesting state, and is subject to deprivation of
liberty for a minimum period of at least one year. Additionally, the supplementary
treaty simplifies the procedure for notarization and forwarding of extradition
documents, which has thus far been quite complicated.
- Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement
- Germany and the USA have also been cooperating
intensively for many years on other mutual assistance matters. This might
involve, for example, the examination of witnesses, the seizure of evidence,
or the service of summons and other documents at the request of the other
state. The German judicial authorities have been able to provide this type
of legal assist-ance even without a contractual basis; this is based upon
the Act on International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. The
German-American Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed in October 2003 by
Germany and the USA places this cooperation onto a foundation which is
binding under international law.
- The supplementary treaty signed today
complements the bilateral treaty, among other aspects with regulations
on the formation of joint investigation teams, the possibility of video
examination of witnesses and experts, as well as the investi-gation of
holders of certain bank accounts. These regulations are also oriented to
the agreement concluded between the European Union and the USA.
- What do you read into this press release?
It sounds to me that any EU country could request my extradition if somebody,
some country or some individual within the EU countries decides that
the content of the Zundelsite is "criminal." And here I
am, having lived on the American Continent since I was 24 years old and
never ever having been in conflict with the law! I don't want to
think that yet another hit squad could come racing up my hill with their
hands on their guns and kidnap me as they kidnapped my husband - but these
liars and con-men are desperate as their lies unravel before the world's
very eyes, and anything is possible.
- Again, I ask for your input. What
do you make of this latest?
- Ingrid Zundel