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 4 of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
in Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4,
26 November 2007.
****************
Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by J. M. Damon
****************
Sylvia the Proud Patriot
What’s
in a name? Quite a lot in
the case of Sylvia Stolz. “Stolz” means “proud” in German, and that word
describes Sylvia very well: proud and undaunted despite her impending disbarment
and/or imprisonment for representing Revisionist defendants. No wonder her
supporters call her “the German Joan of Arc.”
****************
There are no police vehicles parked in front of the courthouse today. Scheduled for 9:00 am, the session begins at 9:10. Eight policemen and one bailiff are present: at first two armed policemen in the courtroom, then six more are added along with three Staschu (Staatsschutz) agents. These are the German political police patterned on the old Stasi from DDR days. The usual members of the court: Presiding Judge Rolf Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia Stolz accompanied her two attorneys and Horst Mahler. There is one representative of the “poodle press”: Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. There are about 30 visitors today.
Sylvia begins with her response to the Court ruling of 19 November.
She objects to the misrepresentations and false depictions regarding her testimony on “Holocaust” and OMF (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule). {OMF is a term formulated in 1948 by Carlo Schmid, the “Father of the Basic Law” and expert on international law. Schmid, a member of the parliamentary council that compiled Germany’s Basic Law, had the task of formulating an objective term for the legal basis of the new regime. The term had to describe the regime’s compliant nature without using derogatory phrases such as “vassal state” or “puppet government.” Since the Bundesrepublik with its Basic Law was never approved by plebiscite, it could not accurately be called a “constitution” under international law. For a more detailed description of OMF visit this website: <www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Mahler/Hennig_engl.htm}
Sylvia announces that as part of her testimony she intends to introduce Horst Mahler’s Heilsgeschichtliche Lage des Deutschen Reiches (Salvation History and the Religious Policy of the German Reich.) She also intends to read pertinent portions of other texts. In order to establish the extent of Jewish influence and the Jewish worldview and self-image, she then quotes a great deal from the Talmud and Torah as well as Schul-chan-aruch. This is a catechism of the Genara Mischna Talmud, a worldwide connecting link of Jewish culture. Sylvia observes that today one can also read about the uniqueness of the “special Jewish world view” in an article written by the Israeli ambassador in Berlin that is available on the Internet. She points out that the threats of punishment in her indictment, as well as the shameful conduct of the Court in accepting the indictment, are evidence of foreign domination by the Jews. This domination has been built primarily on the imposed “Holocaust” myth. On the basis of quotations, Sylvia points out numerous significant differences between German and Jewish Volksgeist (national genius.) This is followed by a short lecture on Jewish religion past and present.
Mack the Reporter leaves at 9:45, after just half an hour. He still concocts a report on the entire day’s proceedings. You can read it in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, at <www.morningweb.de>. Sylvia repeatedly asks the question: what is an attorney supposed to do when he or she discovers evidence that would help his or her client? Should the attorney just keep quiet and ignore it? Should the attorney ask whether he or she is going to be threatened, indicted and convicted for introducing evidence? The Staschu agents leave at 10:10 am and the visitors breathe a sign of relief. Around 10:25, Judge Glenz interrupts Sylvia and reminds her of his judicial admonition that what she is reading in court has nothing to do with her indictment, which is for expressing doubt about “Holocaust” and disparaging “BRDDR” (the present government of Germany, which combines the worst elements of the old “BRD” and “DDR.”)
Sylvia does not allow herself to be intimidated. She firmly responds that on the contrary, her presentations are very pertinent to the matter at hand, since it is necessary for her to establish the influence of the Talmud on Jewish witnesses. Because of the influence of the Talmud, religiouys Jews have no inhibitions about bearing false witness against non Jews. Sylvia’s presentation goes too far for Glenz. He announces that he wants his instructions to be understood as an official admonition. Again he instructs the Court Recorder to enter this into the Court Record. Undeterred, Sylvia goes on to state that world Jewry now possesses the means, technique and influence to project and enforce Jewish supremacy worldwide. Sylvia observes that the Bench in this trial is attempting to hinder her presenting insight into Jewish thought, including relevant and significant Jewish quotations, as though such quotations were irrelevant and taken out of context. She says that is the reason why, when introducing evidence, she intends to include Horst Mahler’s testimony from his Berlin trial.
Sylvia then remarks on the obvious discomfort of the judges, who have firm instructions to avoid “providing a forum for Revisionism.”
She points out that this is indisputable evidence that the Court is not concerned with establishing the truth: it does not allow material evidence. She points out that Revisionists, by contrast, are truth seekers who have devoted themselves to researching the “Holocaust” in great detail for many years. She warns the Bench that it is “crossing the Rubicon of public shame and humiliation” and observes that authentic German law proceeds from a presumption of honesty and from the quest for truth and justice. She asks about the conscience of the jurists in this case: what do they want? Do they just want to be left in peace? Which do they prefer – to be champions of the German nation and seek the truth, or to be despicable traitors who lack the will to pursue obvious empirical truth? She observes that whatever choice they make, they will not be the same at the end of this trial as they were at the beginning. She says that if they convict her they will lose all sense of honor because they are not conducting a real trial, but another wretched show trial. If they convict her they will be acting in the capacity of henchmen of the “OMF.” Legally, ethically, historically and philosophically, they will be contributing to the assassination of the German character. They will be collaborating in the imposition of the Talmudic “Holocaust” religion on Germany.
Sylvia’s pronouncements cannot really be called a defense. It is in fact a kind of counter indictment. She points out that all her arguments are empirical and objective and directly relevant to specific points in her indictment. She explains that her conduct and reasons for her actions are part of a political trial; and she declares that she intends to defend herself with all means at her disposal against the anticipated muzzle order. She asks: does an attorney have the professional obligation to demand, pursue and facilitate evidence that will assist his or her client and discover the truth, or not? She reminds the Court that in conjunction with the trial of songwriter Frank Rennicke over three years ago, Horst Mahler submitted a detailed Verfassungsbeschwerde (Constitutional Complaint) that still has not been decided by the Constitutional Court. She insists that as an attorney, she has always acted in accordance with Section 193 of the Penal Code, which requires the attorney to take all legitimate interests and measures into consideration. She asks: is it even possible to indict a defense attorney for taking his or her professional obligation seriously and doing everything possible to meet these obligations? If the Court’s answer to this question is “yes” then this answer is further proof of Talmudic supremacy in the “BRDDR.” However, it is obvious that such despotism can no longer be called “justice.”
Sylvia then demonstrates that the only thing obvious about official Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) is that it is not a fact but rather an opinion and an evaluation; and such opinions do not remain unchanged forever. New knowledge logically and inevitably leads to a new Offenkundigkeit. When the old Offenkundigkeit collapses, as the Manifest Obviousness of Geocentricity collapsed in the 17th Century, it becomes necessary to seek empirical and scientific evidence. Furthermore, in the present trial, there is no legally binding definition of “Holocaust.” She points out that official Offenkundigkeit results in the de facto proscription of legally defending one’s client, which violates the first principle of justice in the Western world. She says that this again illustrates the “OMF” nature of the vassal “BRDDR” regime, whose administrators are puppets of the victorious Allies.
At 11:05 Judge Glenz again interrupts her with remarks about her “circumlocutions.” Stolz responds that her presentation is quite relevant because she is also charged with denigrating the government. The Judge then calls a ten minute recess. There are now only two policemen in the courtroom and no bailiff. After the break Sylvia continues with her presentation, pointing out that an occupying enemy power cannot expect loyalty from the nation it occupies. Therefore: why should any attorney express a high regard for a branch of the “OMF?” How can Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag (representing a client without a commission), as Sylvia has represented the Reich (which under international law still exists as the legitimate German government) be construed as a criminal offense? This was one of the charges leveled against her in Karlsruhe Superior District Court. She points out that this is a legal question, and attorneys are hired to give legal opinions. Are attorneys now required to accept the opinion of the prosecutor? If so, what is the use of attorneys in the “BRDDR”? Are attorneys required to defer to a system that is clearly illegal under international law, and must they obey the functionaries of a system that is clearly illegal under international law? She points out that German judges allow only one view of contemporary history; and they proscribe and punish contradictory views. Since the 8th of May 1945 the National Socialist world-view has been proscribed and repressed.
At 11:33 Judge Glenz again interrupts her once again and says that she is repeating herself and engaging in circumlocutions. Sylvia disputes this and states that, on the contrary, what she is presenting pertains very much to the point. Glenz admonishes her again and when Sylvia attempts to read a portion of the acceptance speech of the Jewish author and Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter, Judge Glenz becomes agitated. He says he does not want to hear it and he forbids her to quote it. Sylvia then requests a ruling on the matter by the Court, which withdraws to confer at 11:50 and returns at 12:00. Judge Glenz then announces that the Court supports his decision: Pinter’s opinion is not relevant to Sylvia’s indictment. He calls a noonday recess until 1 o’clock and the Court reconvenes at 1:10 pm.
As expected, Syvia counters the Court’s ruling with a reply in which she makes clear that the Pinter quotation is highly pertinent to the problem of “OMF” and “pax americana.” Then she explains that the Pinter quotation should not be considered as evidence, but rather the exposition of a thesis, and she again asks for another ruling by the Court. The court recesses until 1:38. As expected, the Court supports Judge Glenz’s ruling: the Pinter quotation may not be read into the record. When Sylvia attempts to summarize its contents, Glenz again interrupts and says he does not want to hear it, which prompts Sylvia to demand yet another ruling. At 1:50 the court again recesses and again resumes at 2:00 and Glenz again announces that the Court again upholds his decision that the Pinter quotation has absolutely no relevance to Sylvia’s trial. {Those who are curious to know why Judge Glenz is so determined to keep the Pinter speech out of the court record, can read it at <nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html>.}
Sylvia then moves for a recess in order to confer with Attorney Bock and Horst Mahler. The proceedings resume at 2:50, at which time
Sylvia explains that she is attempting to break the judges’ blockade of an alternative world view that is not familiar to them. She points out that they are acting as henchmen for a worldwide system of repression, terror and injustice that the USA... Glenz interrupts her in mid sentence with the announcement that the Court is seriously considering imposing a time limitation on her testimony. Glenz asks whether she would give the Court a written version of what she has presented so that they would be able to better deal with it. Sylvia replies that she will provide the Court with her written text at the end of her presentation. At 3:00 pm the Court once again recesses to confer. It resumes at 3:20 with the announcement that it has not concluded its discussion; there is need for further deliberation. It announces that it will resume tomorrow morning at 11:00 and so terminates today’s session. A visitor does not understand and asks about the exact time , whereupon Glenz repeats “11 O’clock” in a very loud and agitated voice.
Today’s proceedings show that Glenz has become quite agitated.
We can now expect a course of events similar to those of the Zündel trial.
****************
Day 5 of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
in Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4,
27 November 2007.
What was evident to the knowledgeable observer yesterday, occurred today in part: the proceedings were cancelled. The only notice of this was a sign placed at the entrance to the courtroom: “Today’s Session Has Been Cancelled.” The Court did not give a reason or explanation. Since neither Sylvia nor Horst nor the two attorneys appeared, we can assume that they were notified. The cancelled session suggests that we can expect a judicial thunderbolt on Thursday. At the very least, the Court will impose a time limit on Sylvia’s presentation.
As I mentioned in my first report, I will not be able to cover the Thursday session. However, I hope that two friends with whom I discussed the matter, will share their accounts with me, so that I will be able to include them in my reports for the coming week.
Günter Deckert
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 27.11.2007
PS: I repeat my remarks from my first report, which hold true also for partial selections, reproductions and summarizations in languages other than German as well.
Many thanks to Frau Ilona O. as well as Josef K. and Manfred Kr. for their contributions to offset my travel expenses to Mannheim.
and preparing these reports.
Horst Mahler has also thanked me for my reports, which are the only alternative to official coverage of Sylvia’s trial.
****************