- Here is the latest from the Zionist-steered Bundesrepublik
of Germany. What happened is a travesty because, essentially, Sylvia has
been sentenced brutally for defending Ernst Zundel by asking that submissions
in his defense be allowed! Apparently this utterly undemocratic sentence
caused a major uproar in certain circles. Ernst called me shortly thereafter,
and I asked what this development meant. I asked specifically: "Is
this in-your-face malice, or is it desperation on the part of our enemies?"
Ernst thought it was desperation - the Holocaust Believers have run out
of options and are being pushed to the wall!
-
- You make of it what you will!
-
- START
-
-
- Day 14 of the "Holocaust" Trial of Attorney
Sylvia Stolz
-
- In Mannheim Kangaroo Court, 10 January 2008
-
- Reported by Günter Deckert Translated by J M Damon
-
- ****************
-
- 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 a 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 despoitism 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
in order 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 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 1:00.
-
- 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
lingistic 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 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. [Excerpted]
-
-
- END
-
-
- Postscript: Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to three-and-a-half
years in prison and arrested in the courtroom, on grounds that she might
flee!
-
- As soon as I have the English translation, I will also
post it and send it to my list.
-
- Ingrid Zundel
-
|
