See the DVDs shocking the nation:
When the Darkness Falls: The Racially Divided States of America
---------------
Making Criminals of Christians
---------------
The Line in the Sand: America's Forgotten Borders
---------------
The Persecution of Revisionists: The Holocaust Unveiled
---------------
Zionist War Crimes: The Case for the Prosecution
---------------
Judea Declares War: A Critical Look at WWII
---------------
Understanding Anti-Semitism: Why Do Some People Dislike Jews?
---------------
Rep. Paul Findley Dares to Speak Out: A 22-Year Veteran Congressman Exposes Israel's Lobby
---------------
Ritual Murder Revisited: The Hidden Cult
---------------
Human Sacrifice among the Fanatical Hasidic Jews and Other Cults from Ancient Times to the Present
---------------
---------------
---------------
Slave Trade in the World Today
---------------
---------------
The Whole Story of Zionist Conspiracy
---------------
Michael Collins Piper Live Radio 7-8 PM EST
Politically Incorrect Cartoons
Paul Grubach's Writings on the Holocaust, Etc.
South African/ Zimbabwean Headlines
*****************
(This website is hosted by the above, and supports both Free Speech and America.)
The Bavarian Spitfire on Trial
Wer vor Gericht zieht und zur See fährt, braucht Gottes Hilfe.
Wer in einen politischen Prozeß hineingerät, dem kann auch Gott nicht helfen.
He who goes to Court or to sea needs God’s help, but not even God can help someone caught in a political trial.
(Dr. Siepmann, München)
****************
Day 1 of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz in Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4, 15 November 2007.
Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by J. M. Damon
Judge Glenz presiding, accompanied by Attendant Judges Dr. Bock and Dr. Lindenthal as well as Lay Judges Askani and Haaß. All are over 50 years of age except for one attendant judge. Judge Glenz appears to be around 60 years old. {The presiding judge creates the impression of being thoughtful, composed and fatherly, yet leaves no doubt that he is steering directly in a given direction, namely a timely conclusion of the trial. In comparison to the agitated nervousness of Dr. Meinerzhagen in the Zündel trial or slick and polished Schwab in the Rudolf trial, he cuts a better figure.}
Scheduled for 9:00, the trial gets under way at 9:52. The same security measures are in place as in the Zündel and Rudolf trials. Around 15 uniformed police agents are present in the building and the courtroom is completely filled. There is less media coverage than in the Zündel and Rudolf trials. By and large, the Poodle Press is ignoring this trial. If it mentions the trial at all it is to heap politically correct abuse on “Rightwing Radical Extremists,” “Holocaust Deniers,” “Neo Nazis” etc. The press particularly enjoys ridiculing the close personal relationship that has developed between Horst Mahler, who is 71, and Sylvia Stolz, who is 44. 2 photographers are present as well as 1 cameraman, 8 journalists and the Court Illustrator. V. Zastrow is here for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ) and “Schreiber Mack” for the Mannheimer Morgen (MM) along with “The Gorilla” from BILD Rhein-Neckar as well as a blonde thirtysomething from dpa (Deutsche Presse-Agentur). Leftwing rabblerouser K. Plastig from taz (Tageszeitung Berlin) is also here along with someone from Die Rheinpfalz in Ludwigshafen. In the courtroom there is 1 bailiff along with four armed policemen. I do not see any familiar faces among the “Staschu” (Staatsschutz or “State Protectors.”) In the former DDR, the genesis of this political police force, these agents were called “Stasi,” an abbreviation for “Staatssicherheit.” Among the audience are Lady Michel R. and Peter R. of <jailingopinions.com> from England; Claude V. from France; Dr. Rigold Hennig, the publisher of Der Reichsboten, and Joachim Schärf. As usual, Reichshauptstadt Berlin is represented by a large delegation.
Attorney Sylvia Stolz, affectionately known to her supporters as “The German Joan of Arc” and “The Bavarian Spitfire” on account of her indomitable spirit, is accompanied by Horst Mahler. She is represented by Defense Attorney Ludwig Bock and a thirtysomething female attorney who was appointed by the Court over Sylvia’s objections. We are familiar with this tactic from the Zündel trial. The Court is making sure that the proceedings do not result in a mistrial in case Attorney Bock departs (or is removed, as Sylvia was removed during the Zündel trial.) Opposing Sylvia is District Attorney Andreas Grossmann accompanied by Head District Attorney Seiler.
When proceedings finally begin, the Court offers no reason for its tardiness. The first item is a procedural question concerning the status of Horst Mahler. Attorney Wingerter submits Mahler’s motion to participate in the trial, which is disallowed, although the Court allows him to remain in the room as an observer. Horst is called to the stand as a witness. Since he has publicly announced that he and Silvia are engaged to be married, he is excused from having to testify against her.
Next, Grossmann and Seiler take turns reading the indictment. Most of the charges grew out of the trial of Ernst Zündel. They relate not only to evidentiary motions and trial strategy, but also to her testimony during her complaint before Superior District Court Karlsruhe. This complaint concerned here bodily removal from the Zündel trial. Grossman and Seiler read 5 pages concerning these incidents as well as complaints from a trial in Potsdam County Court. The indictment can be obtained from Attorney Stolz for a small fee to cover expenses.
Primarily the charges have to do with Verfahrensvereitelung (Obstruction) of the Zündel trial as well as Beleidigung (Insulting Remarks) about “BRDDR.” [BRDDR is a reference to the present German government, which consists of the old BRD merged with the old DDR. Critics say the BRDDR combines the worst aspects of both Cold War governments, neither of which was adopted by plebiscite in its respective puppet regime.]
Sylvia is also charged with Beleidigung des Andenkens Verstorbener, (Insulting the Memory of the Deceased, meaning Jews) and Volksverhetzung (Incitement of the Masses, which is punishable under the notorious Article 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Penal Code.) On behalf of the BRDDR the District Attorney is demanding that Sylvia be disbarred from practicing law, in addition to other punishments. Judge Glenz announces that the Court, meeting in chambers, has accepted the indictment.
The Defense moves for a deferment and appeal to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (the German version of the US Supreme Court) in order to clarify the fundamental question of whether Section 130 of the Penal Code is constitutional. At issue is the widely held contention that Section 130 is incompatible with Article 5 Paragraph 1 of the Grundgesetz (Basic Law,) which guarantees freedom of speech, opinion and research in compliance with the United Nations Charter. The Bundesverfassungsgericht has never ruled on the burning question of whether the German Penal Code is compatible with the German Basic Law. Bock’s motion is based on opinions expressed in an article by the former presiding judge of Hamburg District Court, Dr. G. Bertram, in Neue Juristische Wochenzeitung No. 21 / 2005. This article presents the issue very clearly.
{Page 2 of Report}
It is encouraging that Dr. Bertram has publicly applauded the recent decision of the Spanish Supreme Court concerning “Holocaust” prosecutions. The Spanish decision supports freedom of opinion and overturns the conviction of a Spanish citizen named Varela who had been convicted of denying “Holocaust.” During my (Günter Deckert’s) trials in the 1990s, Judge Bertram had not yet expressed concerns about the compatibility of Section 130 with Basic Law. District Attorney Grossmann sees no reason to request a ruling by the Budesgerichtshof, and Sylvia’s court appointed lawyer does not support Attorney Bock’s motion.
At 10:35 the Court announces a pause as the judges retire to confer in chambers. Half the reporters leave the courtroom, including “Gorilla” from BILD and the blonde from dpa. Court reconvenes at 1:00 pm and gives its ruling on Bock’s motion: “NEIN!” The Defense had of course expected this, just as the Court and anticipated the motion. There will be no deferral and the Court will not ask the Budesgerichtshof to rule on the compatibility of Section 130 with Basic Law. The judge declares that Mannheim District Court has conducted its own research into the matter. It has decided that legal doubts about the compatibility of freedom of opinion and prosecution for Incitement are not adequate to justify a request for a ruling by a higher court.
At 1:13 Sylvia is allowed to begin presenting her Einlassung, or statement of her position. She explains that her indictment is in reality an indictment of various branches of the “OMF” (Organisationsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft = Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.) {OMF is a term formulated by the “Father of the Basic Law” and expert on international law, Prof. Carlo Schmid, in 1948. He was a member of the parliamentary council that compiled the present Basic Law. In 1948, when Washington executed its sudden about-face from the Morgenthau Plan to the Marshall Plan, Prof. Schmid was charged with formulating an acceptable legal description of the new
regime in West Germany that would describe the regime’s subservient nature without using terms such as “vassal state” or “puppet government.” Since the new government had not been approved by plebescite, its charter could not be called a “Constitution.” For a detailed description of OMF visit this website: <www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Mahler/
Hennig_engl.htm>}
Sylvia announces that she does not intend to discuss in detail the points included in the indictment, which are by and large accurately presented. She points out that she was merely doing her duty as attorney for the defense, which was to defend her client. She takes this duty seriously! She then describes the extreme procedures that characterized the Meinerzhagen court and demonstrates how that court expressed total indifference to historical reality. She observes that the Zündel trial was a show trial from beginning to end, as was the Rudolf trial. The same is of course true of her own trial as well. She knows that her evidentiary motions will be routinely denied as part of the Court’s hollow legalistic ritual. They will be dismissed as “not pertinent, irrelevant, not part of these proceedings,” etc. In political trials, the verdict is decided before the trial begins.
Sylvia says that in her presentation she wants to develop four pertinent arguments:
1) Since the end of World War II, Germany has been ruled by foreign powers acting through the OMF;
2) More specifically, Germany has been ruled by Jewish occupiers in accordance with rules laid down in the Talmud, known as the Talmudic Inquisition;
3) The official historical record has been thoroughly falsified regarding World War II and the Third Reich; and
4) Under OMF law, the Third Reich can legally be depicted only as “evil” and “satanic,” as though these were legal concepts.
Sylvia points out that the present German judicial perversions result from the violent imposition of a particular version of history. Anyone who expresses an alternate opinion is transformed into an untouchable recreant. Thus, public opinion is the real target of the prosecutors in these “Holocaust” show trials. She urges the Court to consider how many things Germans are no longer allowed to say or think in Germany. Here she refers to an article by former SPIEGEL editor Fritjof Meyer in the journal Osteuropa (published by Prof. Rita Süßmuth of the Christian Democratic Party) in the issue for May 2002, pages 631-641. [This article is available as reprint from Durchblick-Schriften-Vesand, Bremen 2004, which also contains the rejection of the indictment against Horst Mahler and Günter Deckert that was drawn up by Stuttgart District Attorney on 28 May 2003. It is also available online at < www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/fritjof-meyer/meyer-osteuropa.shtml>, <www.fritjof-meyer/meyer-replik-auf-piper.shtml> and < fritjof-meyer/index.shtm>.]
Sylvia points out that evidentiary motions to depict what really happened are proscribed by German courts. This makes the task of the defense attorney impossible. The official OMF consensus on “Holocaust” has been achieved through great judicial violence. She remarks that the German courts long ago abandoned their duty to establish truth by gathering material evidence. However, the holy cow of Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) cannot reign forever. This was established by the Petitions Committee of Federal Parliament in a position paper in 1994/95. The courts’ present practice is the use of an arbitrary Ausnahmestrafrecht (Emergency Penal Code.) Here she is referring to the Bertram Beitrag (Bertarm Article) mentioned above. The Bundesgerichtshof has never released a detailed and final opinion on the matter. She points out that this has resulted in the never ending occupation of Germany by its enemies in the two World Wars. The Court recesses briefly between 2:15 and 2.30.
After the recess Sylvia observes that she herself is now in a very exposed position in a very ominous location. In this very courtroom Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel and Günter Deckert {your reporter} have all been convicted on account of their opinions. However, she is determined not to bend to threats and violence. She goes on to describe certain Ur-Erlebnisse (enlightening or defining experiences) that have occurred in her life. One of these was the pseudo-documentary melodrama “Holocaust” made by the Zionist Jewish film producer Steven Spielberg in the 1970s, which she saw when she was young. Other similar Ur-Erlebnisse were events she experienced as an activist for animal rights during her student days and reading the book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte (The Foundations of Contemporary History) by Ernst Gauss alias Germar Rudolf, published in Tübingen in 1994. {For possession of 55 copies of this book, your reporter was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment without parole by the court in Weinheim (Judge Herbig) in 1995, which was upheld by the appeals court in Mannheim District Court (Judge Köhler.) The courts assumed that I must have read the book in its entirety and therefore must have known that it contained proscribed materials. However, at the time I placed the orders to buy the books they had not yet been proscribed, or even indexed! At the time of the appeal I was already incarcerated in Bruchsal, having been arrested at Frankfurt airport in November 1995 when I returned from abroad. The reason given for my arrest was “danger of fleeing the country!”} Sylvia then quotes extensively from Grundlagen (around 20 pages), which prompts Judge Glenz to remark that her presentation has little to do with her indictment, and that extensive quotations contradict the purpose of her position statement.
{Page 3 of Report}
He says that he wants this to be understood as an admonition. Frequent word exchanges occur before Sylvia is allowed to continue.
It becomes clear that Sylvia is growing tired, as she had to drive over the snow-covered Swabian Alps during the night, from Ebersberg east of Munich to Mannheim. After a short pause from 4:15 until 4:25, today’s session comes to an end.
****************
Day 2 of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz In Mannheim District Court, 16 November 2007.
Scheduled to begin at 9 O’clock, proceedings get under way at 9:14.
The Court has the same composition except that District Attorney Grossmann is alone today. Both of Sylvia’s attorneys are present as well as 1 representative of the press (Die Rheinpfalz) and 35 visitors. Resuming where she left off yesterday, Sylvia begins speaking on
National Socialist policies toward the Jews. She describes the various historic schools of this subject with emphasis on the writings of the Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno. He demonstrated that the concept of Sonderbehandlung (Special Treatment) referred to any and all treatment that was not routine, just as its name implies. It clearly was not synonymous with “liquidation” since internment in luxury hotels was also called Sonderbehandlung.
Then she discusses at length the research by Udo Walendy on the subject of falsifications and photographic montages in his book Wahrheit für Deutschland (Truth for Germany) published by Vlotho/Weser in 1973. The German government’s attempts to suppress this work failed. She also discusses J. C. Ball’s expert analysis of wartime air photographs of Auschwitz, which disprove the allegations of smoking chimneys, mass murders, burnings of
corpses in fire pits, etc. Ball’s works have never been acknowledged by OMF “court historians.” Sylvia also discusses the “Great Wendig” publications. {Der Große Wendig – Richtigstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte” (The Great Wendig: Corrections to Contemporary History.” Presently in two volumes; Vol. 3 will appear in December. This is highly recommended – order from me and I will pay postage! In addition, it is a good idea to get the German Penal Code and study Sections 88 and 130 very carefully. The commentaries are very helpful. The commentary by Tröndle and Fischer is a relative bargain at around 75 Euros. Since I wish to purchase the latest edition, I am willing to sell my edition of 2001 for 35 Euros.}
Sylvia then moves on to the writings of the Frenchmen Paul Rassinier, who was interned at Buchenwald Concentration Camp, and Prof. Robert Faurisson, who is famous for his challenge to the “Holocaust Industry” to “show me a single document!” She points out that all the researchers she has mentioned are prominent witnesses who have presented their opinions in well-documented empirical argument. She asks: How is it possible that defense attorneys are not allowed to defend their clients with evidentiary motions? This question arises constantly in “Holocaust” prosecutions. It is very clear that criminal laws are misused to protect the official “Holocaust Industry.” This leads the public to constantly ask: Who has an interest in the propagation and continuation of “Holocaust?” Every single OMF court has shied away from the central problem of the lack of material evidence for “Holocaust,” while material evidence is never allowed on behalf of the defense, even though such evidence is readily available. She returns to the above mentioned book by Gauss/Rudolf as well as the book by F.P. Berg, Mordwaffe Dieselmotor (The Diesel Motor as A Murder Weapon.) It is undeniable that evidentiary motions are routinely disallowed by the German courts, and this is a very great injustice. Silvia observes that Talmudic justice rules the OMF courts, which has resulted in a Tamudic Inquisition. Here District Attorney Grossmann interrupts with the demand that this remark be included in the official court record, since such observations are criminal acts. The Court orders a ten-minute recess and announces that today’s proceedings will terminate at 2:15 pm.
Sylvia then reiterates her determination to fight for the truth and for the German nation. She points out that the above-mentioned illogicalities of official “Holocaust” historiography are indisputable and obvious to everyone. Why are those who ask obvious questions persecuted and imprisoned? Who profits from such tyranny and repression? Do Jews enjoy special privileges in the BRDDR or not? She points out tha citizens who ask logical questions are demonized, isolated, defamed, persecuted and imprisoned. In the recent case of Eva Hermann, official repression was again clearly demonstrated. Sylvia observes that German citizens are not allowed to criticize atrocities committed by the Zionist settler state in Palestine because Jews were victims once upon a time. Citizens cannot draw comparisons or make accountings because to do so is “immoral.” Sylvia then quotes the Jewish writer Martin Buber and his concept of truth as “forbidden fiction.” She points out that truth and objective reality are no longer considered in German courts. Judaism has succeeded in establishing its peculiar version of reality not just in Germany, but worldwide.
{Page 4 of Report}
Throughout the German nation, Judaism has created for itself a moralistic power position that it exploits for financial extortion.
She then quotes from central passages of the Talmud to the effect that only Jews are human; all other denizens of the Earth are mere animals. She quotes numerous other Talmudic passages and comparisons. The Court recesses for lunch between 12:30 and 1:00, then resumes at 1:05 pm.
Continuing after lunch, Sylvia points out that Judaism strives for the dissolution of all other nationalities through racial and ethnic mixing. Here Judge Glenz again interrupts her with a question about specific relevance to her indictment. She replies that she is illustrating the extent of occupation and foreign rule over the German Reich. Germans who express misgivings about Überfremdung (foreign infiltration and colonization) are also prosecuted under Article 130. Then she briefly discusses the open letter that Host Mahler wrote to Daniel Goldhagen regarding his book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners.” Again Judge Glenz interrupts and asked her to briefly summarize her individual points. He says that her statement of position has to relate to specific points in her indictment. Sylvia replies that this is not a possibility and again explains her plan for presenting her statement. Attorney Bock also demonstrates that her statements are in fact within the framework of the indictment. She points out that her indictment is arbitrary and outrageous. It demonstrates the totalitarian absurdity of prosecuting citizens for expressing opinions. How can opinions be prosecuted? In the Internet age, why do the courts even consider such indictments?
Sylvia explains that she is attempting to force the Court to return to the quest for truth. The principal task of every court is to seek the truth, but these guidelines for justice are abandoned in “Holocaust” trials. Another example of this is the judicial creation of “tatbestandlichen Voraussetzung” (Court assumptions concerning the facts of the case) associated with Article 130, the OMF’s newest political innovation. As it is now 2:25pm, proceedings are discontinued until 9 am Monday, 19 November.
****************
Day 3 of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz in Mannheim District Court on 19 November 2007.
The trial resumes shortly after 9 am, with Court in the same composition as Friday: District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia’s two attorneys. Today there is 1 representative of the press (Die Rheinpfalz) and two agents of “Staschu.” There is no bailiff present and no policemen are in the courtroom. Only 4 policemen are on duty in the courthouse, with no police cars in front. 25 observers are here today.
At the start, Judge Glenz spends about 10 minutes reading some “legal guidelines,” about 4 pages long, which was to be expected after his admonitions on Friday. The issue is what Silvia shall be allowed to say and how she shall be allowed to say it. The Court is concerned that she might misuse the trial as a forum for her views on “Holocaust” specifically and Revisionism in general. Judge Glenz says the Court is considering imposing a time limit on her presentation. At 9:15 he orders a consultation recess of 1 hour for the sake of the Defense, and proceedings resume at 10:23.
At that time Judge Glenz asks Attorney Bock whether the recess for consultation was adequate. Bock answers in the negative and says that the Defense intends to submit a written response, which will be completed by 9am Monday, 26 November. To the judge’s question of whether the response could be completed by the middle of this week, Bock responds that the Defense will try to complete it by that time but he cannot promise anything. With this, today’s proceedings conclude at 10:26 am. They will continue at 9am on Monday, 26 November.
{Page 5 of Report}
General Remarks by Your Reporter:
The anticipated dates for continuation of this trial are as follows.
In November: 26th, 27th and 29th. (Unfortunately I have a pressing engagement and will not be present on the 29th.)
In December, trial dates are the 4th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 18th and 20th. In January: 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 22nd, 24th and 29th.
Whether all these dates will be needed, or additional dates will be added, depends on unknown factors. It is obvious that the Court wants to conclude this case as quickly as possible.
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 19 Nov 2007
Günter Deckert
****************
My reports are neither a simultaneous transcription nor an exhaustive account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I request that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author.
Another request: Please consider that compiling these reports took four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim took even longer and in addition, cost 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.“
Thanks!
****************