- It's a virtual tsunami of articles and commentary of
the latest - I can barely keep up posting at least some of them!
-
- I have somewhat of an explanation to what puzzles most
of us - just what is this business of having to have a "mandatory
attorney"? Here in America, I gathered, it would mean a Public Defender
for people who are too poor to pay for an attorney themselves. However,
thanks to our incredibly loyal supporters all over the world, so far Ernst
has paid for every single trial - every single penny for every single one!
The taxpayers of Canada have been made to pay for the Jews!
-
- Just a "for instance": A few weeks ago I got
the bill for about $15,000 for court costs - assessed AGAINST US! That's
costs above and beyond what we have paid for our regular lawyers! And
this is just one instance of, I am guessing, 20-30 times where costs have
been assessed against Ernst over the past 20 years or so.
-
- Now Ernst is in prison, and those bills come to me.
This last bill, too, has been paid.
-
- Let this sink in: the Jewish attorneys of the government
of Canada got paid BY US for OPPOSING US in the Supreme Court when Ernst
applied for what is called "leave" - meaning permission to get
the highest court in Canada to look at what was done so criminally and
brazenly to Ernst! And this after the Court turned us down!
-
- So no wonder that many people might need a "Public
Defender" at taxpayers' expense. However, to my knowledge, NEVER EVER
has Ernst resorted to such a solution!
-
- That's why the "mandatory attorney" was such
a puzzle to me, especially since I knew we had four attorneys of our own
in Germany alone - [for the censors: That's Rieger, Stolz, Schaller and,
I believe, an attorney named Bock - NOT Mahler!] some of whom are working
pro bono, and most of whom are not being paid what we and they know they
deserve to be paid!
-
- Why, then, another "mandatory" attorney?
-
- Below is one good commentary from someone I don't even
know:
-
- (start)
-
- Ingrid,
-
- I refer to your mistrial news. I am not a lawyer and
not qualified for legal advice, but I have some practical experience with
the legal system in the BRD (Germany) and I studied law two semester or
so.
-
- The mandatory attorney is what can be called lead attorney
or attorney in charge. "Mandatory" means that any defendant under
the criminal code or under the legal code (for a dispute above a certain
financial threshold) is obliged to be represented by a qualified legal
professional, i.e. a barred lawyer. Mandatory means it is not possible
for the defendant to represent him or herself or rejects to defend at all.
If this would happen and the defendant does not arrange for a lawyer, the
court will appoint the attorney (hence mandatory/obligatory attorney or
Pflichtverteidiger). However this is a rare and theoretical situation and
I do not know that this ever happened in any trial against the will of
the defendant. It is definitely not part of the beginning of any normal
lawsuit.
-
- The defendant has a right to choose his attorney as long
as he or she is properly barred.
-
- Horst Mahler's attorney license revocation is pending
(because of some political trials), I would guess that the judge can actually
drop him for formal reasons, even if he only acts as assistant.
-
- Herbert Schaller is an Austrian, I am not sure if he
can act in Germany as mandatory attorney. He cannot be dropped for being
too old. Theoretically the judge would need to attest some kind of medical
problem or disability and come up with a formal examination.
-
- Jürgen Rieger has never been dropped before, though
it is true that he was indicted for some thought offense. In my opinion
he still can act as attorney because he is still barred and no unbarring
has ever been attempted to my knowledge.
-
- The rejection of Sylvia Stolz is outrageous. There is
nothing in her past I know of, and the judge cannot proclaim that she is
influenced by Horst Mahler without providing any evidence or structured
statement. She is now virtually destroyed in her profession and reputation.
If she did anything that can be interpreted as an offending comment (I
doubt it is offending, maybe rude), then usually this only justifies some
minor warning not to do this again (like a yellow card in football), in
particular because of her clean past.
-
- I don't know much about the lawsuit procedure law, any
attorney however should. But I would guess a judge cannot reject the defense
on his own. If he does, this step would need to be confirmed and examined
by the next higher court until it becomes a verdict. Any such procedure
would take considerable time, in particular because such things never happened
before. I believe Ernst should appeal this decision, in particular to delay
the lawsuit and hope it takes longer than one year.
-
- I hope my English is good enough and I also hope you
get better responses from qualified legal professionals. In my opinion
, everything should be attempted to continue with Sylvia Stolz and of course
to support this remarkable and brave person.
|
