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.)
Day 13 of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
In Mannheim Kangaroo Court, 8 January 2008
Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by J M Damon
****************
(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 on page 86 of Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust.
****************
This declaration is a classic example of the present assault on the scientific method. The first sentence prohibits open investigation of “Holocaust,” the second sentence presents a circular argument, and the third sentence proclaims official dogma. The fourth sentence combines the three preceding sentences with the establishment of eternal truth.
--Diploma Chemist Germar Rudolf
****************
“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 with Defense Attorney Bock plus a second attorney, female, who was appointed by the Court over Sylvia’s objections (she did not return after midday recess.) 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. There are two media reporters present as the session begins, the blonde from dpa and a reporter for Mannheimer Morgen. He may be reporting for BILD as well.
{The following short article In today’s BILD Rhein-Neckar:
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 is true of today’s edition of the Wormserzeitung: Worms on the Rhein, the old Kaiser’s cathedral, the city of the Niebelungen, about 30 kilometers northwest of Mannheim! There is no mention of the trial whatsoever in the Mannheimer Morgen.}
All the visitors’ seats are taken again. Late arrivals must wait outside, since we cannot move to the large courtroom until after lunch break. Horst Mahler is here of course, as is the delegation from Berlin. There are numerous supporters from Köln, the Kurpfalz and Düsseldorf.
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 on their own, 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 grounds that they are “irrelevant” to “Holocaust” and/or this particular trial; or they are “abuse of the Court;” or else they provide a “forum for Holocaust Denial,” etc., etc. Glenz recites all the old familiar phrases. The only 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.)
He continues his recitation until 9:29, and does not forget to add, with a perfectly straight face, that just because he is rejecting everything does not mean that the Court is neglecting its duty to uncover all the facts. Sylvia confers briefly with Attorney Bock.
After a short time 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.”
{Of course 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 empirical, documentary or forensic evidence? I intend to ask Grossmann about that, because I want to KNOW and not just ACCEPT ON FAITH, and I encourage others to ask him as well. His address: StA GL A. Grossmann / Postfach (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 and documented studies or to authentic researchers.}
Grossmann says that the “Holocaust” dispensation by the German High Court in Karlsruhe, namely the doctrine of Offenkundigkeit is the result of “decades of research”.
{Manifest Obviousness, the doctrine borrowed from the Nuremberg Show Trials, holds that “since everybody knows it to be true, it need not be proven.”}
Grossmann says the most recent book by Saul Friedländer, Die Jahre der Vernichtung (München 2006) presents this in detail.
{Friedländer’s “exhaustive” work, published in 2007 and awarded the “Friedenspreis” by the “German” book fair in Frankfurt, consists of nothing except excerpts from other “exterminationist” books on “Holocaust.” Friedländer has done very little original research and published two works beforehand: 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 Annihilation (2006)}
Attorney Bock now speaks and asks Glenz & Co. about its announced imposition of a deadline. Glenz acts as though he does not understand. There 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!”)
{Konrad Adenauer was a Rhenic Separatist after 1918 and former First Mayor of Cologne. During the National Socialist period the National Socialists removed 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 with his ritualistic “...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 sameold.” 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 complies, adding the embellishment of the phrase “state organized and executed mass murder.” Count by count he goes through “his” indictment, which is 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 conjunction with the Court, he combines / Counts 2 and 3 as well as Counts 10 and 11, which were as “committed in Tateinheit” (two or more offenses combined in one act.)
He specifies Sylvia’s employment of Horst Mahler as her assistant (unlawful because of Mahler’s disbarment); disparagement of the “BRDDR” regime; 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); “obstructing trial procedure” during the Zündel Trial; insulting and attempting to coerce the Court (by referring to Reichsgesetz 90a/b, still lawful under international law since no peace was signed); repeated interruptions of Court proceedings; refusal to acknowledge the legitimacy of “BRDDR”; certain of Sylvia’s expressions in her Rechtsmittel (her appeal of Meinerzhagen’s rejecting 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 ecxpressions 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 complaint.
According to Grossmann, the Gerfman 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 “phantom proceedings.” 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,” along with the idea that the National Socialists attempted to kill all 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 then demands “Order in the Court -- or else!” Giving full vent to demagoguery, Grossmann then turns toward Sylvia and says that she wants “ein Deutschland der brennenden Synagogen!“ (a Germany of burning synagogues.)
{On account of this and other 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 now worked himself into a frenzy, but he still cannot hold a candle to Judge Meinerzhagen when it comes to rationalizing the basis of a “Holocaust” 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 then 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.
Bock then defends Germany’s laws against “Holocaust” Denial, saying “Germany owes a debt to History,” and 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 demogoguery.
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, den 8. Januar 2008