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 7 of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
Accused of Thought Crimes, the Thought Police Work to Punish Her
In Mannheim District Court, 6 December 2007
(There was no hearing on 8 December)
****************
Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by J. M. Damon
Proud Sylvia
What’s in a name? Quite a lot, especially if you are a Bavarian attorney and your name is Sylvia Stolz. “Stolz” means “proud” in German, and that describes Sylvia very well: proud and patriotic.
In the face of disbarment and imprisonment for defending Revisionist thought criminals, her head is bloody but unbowed.
No wonder her supporters call her “the German Joan of Arc.”
****************
Today two police cars are parked in front of Mannheim Courthouse with eight police officers on duty, including one female. There are the usual electronic inspections as well as body searches of persons who seem “suspicious.” Proceedings take place in the small courtroom again today. They begin at 9:07. The Court is in its usual composition: Judge Glenz; District Attorney Grossmann with his bodyguard; Sylvia with Defense Attorney Bock and the court appointed lawyer, who was “planted” in her team over her objections. Horst Mahler is seated among the onlookers. In addition to the police there are 3 “Staschu” (Staatschutz: “State Protection”) agents. Staschu is the updated version of the old Stasi (Staatsicherheit: “State Security”) from DDR days. There is only one representative of the “poodle press”: Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. The media are either ignoring the trial or parroting official slogans about “Neo Nazis, Right Wing Extremists, Holocaust Deniers” etc. There are around 30 visitors, including half a dozen legal clerks and law students.
Judge Glenz begins the day’s proceedings by asking Sylvia if she wishes to provide details of her economic situation, in order to receive reimbursement for travel expenses. She declines and informs the Court that she wishes to begin by explicating documents that the Court has read into the record. She points out that she is on trial for a thought crime; and on account of the Court’s restrictive methodology, the public cannot possibly understand the interconnectedness of her thoughts. The public cannot perceive her strategy and for this reason she demands a formal ruling by the Court. Glenz responds that the Court will get around to it later.
At 9:11 the first witness is introduced. This is Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen, a.k.a. “Judge Nein,” who presided over the Zündel trial. He is famous/infamous for his ruling that "It is irrelevant whether the Holocaust occurred or not. Denying it is a punishable offense.” Accompanied by a police bodyguard, he enters the courtroom and takes a seat at the witness table. From his introduction we learn that he is a 56-year-old bachelor. Judge Glenz explains briefly what the Court wishes to know and then asks him to describe generally the Zündel trial, more specifically Sylvia’s role in it. Judge Meinerzhagen is quite talkative. Speaking in a monotone, he displays very little animation in describing the “ereignisreiche Verhandlung” (“eventful trial.”) I refer the reader to my reports on the Zündel trial from its beginning until the bodily ejection of Attorney Stolz, which is available postpaid for 15 Euros. The Court recesses for 20 minutes, then resumes.
From Meinerzhagen’s testimony concerning the trial days in February and March 2006, we learn for the first time that he caused extensive passages to be recorded as a security precaution. This has not been normal court procedure since 1975. We now know that Meinerzhagen and his two attending judges themselves added a great deal to the official court record, including his intention to file criminal complaints against Sylvia, which he carried out. On the invitation of Judge Glenz, he reads several passages aloud. Glenz asks whether Sylvia had collaborated with Horst Mahler, who had been debarred at the time, and Meinerzhagen says yes.
Referring to documents before him, Meinerzhagen concludes his testimony at 11:57. Occasionally he needs prompting by Judge Glenz, who has the official trial history before him. Meinerzhagen’s memory is not the best -- what a contrast with the astounding memory feats of a certain group of “Holocaust” witnesses! Attorney Bock asks a few routine questions, then it is Sylvia’s turn to question the witness. In consideration of the hour (12:05), she moves that the Court now recess for lunch. She also needs time to refine her questions. Judge Glenz wants to allow only 30 minutes for lunch. On Sylvia’s insistence, however, he recesses the Court until 1:00 pm. Proceedings do not resume until 13:20, partly because Sylvia overstays lunch recess. A few visitors have left by now. Before allowing Sylvia to begin questioning the witness, Glenz admonishes her to “be objective” and “stick to the subject,” hinting at dire consequences if she fails to do so.
Sylvia asks the following questions.
Question 1: She asks why Dr. Meinerzhagen was so concerned about conflicts between court appointed lawyers and the defendant Zündel?
- In response, Meinerzhagen refers to the brief appearance of an attorney named Schütz from Mainz, whom Zündel dismissed after a short time. {It was Schütz’s suggested tactic for Ernst Zündel to plead guilty to all charges and submit no evidentiary motions in hopes of receiving a “mild” sentence.} He says he removed Sylvia following her letter of 18 October 2005 because, in his view, she had proven unreliable for “orderly trial procedure.” He says he also disapproved of attorneys Rieger, Schaller and Bock. In the case of Bock, the Karlsruhe District Court made a big fuss over his decision. He says he was concerned about proper procedure, since it had become clear to him that the trial was beginning to drag and he was worried about the possible loss of the remaining defending attorneys.
Question 2: Is a defending attorney allowed to express doubt about official depictions of “Holocaust” in the interest of his or her client?
- Judge Meinerzhagen attempts to explain and defend Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) as the Federal Criminal High Court defines it. He elusively explains that it is the responsibility of the defense lawyer to impress on the accused what is appropriate trial procedure and to see that he or she understands and observes it.
Question 3: Sylvia asks whether, at the time of the Zündel trial, Meinertshagen was familiar with the article by Spiegel Associate Fritjof Meyer in the Osteuropa magazine issue of May 2002. {This article, as well as the initial complaint filed against me and rejected by the Stuttgart District Attorney, is available for 5 Euros from your reporter.}
- Dr. Meinerzhagen answers in the negative, saying he first became aware of the article when it was submitted along with a motion. Judge Glenz interrupts and asks why Sylvia is asking this question. Sylvia explains that if Meinerzhagen was aware of the Meyer article and its relation to Rechtsverletzung (judicial infringement), then her actions would have to be allowed since they were justified. Glenz declares her question to be “verfahrensfremd” (foreign to the proceedings). He says the question does not pertain to the matter at hand, is not relevant, is a distraction, etc. For experienced visitors at political show trials, such as those who attended the Zündel and Rudolf trials, it is obvious what is coming next. Glenz announces that this court, like the Zündel and Rudolf courts, would prohibit “heikle Fragestellungen,” that is, the posing of tricky questions that relate to the substance of the proceeding itself. Sylvia points out that he cannot yet make such a ruling since she has not yet asked her question. Attorney Bock supports her in this. Sylvia begins asking her question again and Glenz butts in again. She has to start over again and a dispute develops between her and Glenz on the subject of “Rechtsbeugung” (bending the law). Is she “perverting the course of justice?” Sylvia points out numerous instances in which judges in political trials have clearly bent the law and acted unlawfully. Such incidents were especially numerous in the Zündel trial. She asks: isn’t a judge allowed, indeed required to take new evidence into consideration? After all, judges themselves have to determine what is evidence; they cannot forever refer to higher courts. Glenz asks what this matter has to do with the specifics of her indictment. Sylvia responds that Meinerzhagen thwarted her obligation to defend her client by presenting her from submitting evidence. At this time (1:50 pm) Glenz recesses the Court and it retires to confer until 2:07. After recess Sylvia again poses her question concerning the Meyer article. If Judge Meinerzhagen had indeed been familiar with the Meyer article during the Zündel trial, then Sylvia’s actions were justified in the framework of “Nothilfe” (emergency measures.) {“Acts of Emergency” and “Self Defense” provide legal justification for an action or tactic that would otherwise be disallowed in trial proceedings. An “Emergency Act” is legal defense that is allowable in order to defray an actual illegal attack from oneself or one’s client (Section 227 of Basic Law and Section 32 of Penal Code.) The necessary precondition for an Emergency Act is an imminent attack (not restricted to an attack on life and limb); and the party attacked can be a third person.} Judge Glenz interrupts again, saying she is not allowed to ask this question because it does not refer specifically to her indictment, and therefore Judge Meinerzhagen does not have to answer it. Sylvia observes that his ruling provides still more proof that “Holocaust” trials are exclusively political in nature and conducted under extraordinary trial procedure.
QUESTION 4: Sylvia asks Meinerzhagen why the Meyer article was not sufficient reason for him to entertain doubts about “Manifest Obviousness.” His response is that the Meyer article “essentially” confirms the extermination thesis.
QUESTION 5: Sylvia asks if it is Meinerzhagen’s belief that the Meyer article confirms the extermination thesis, even though it admits there is no empirical evidence for a crime site or the number of victims. Meinerzhagen responds that the site of the alleged extermination is irrelevant and the number of victims is an open question; it cannot be exactly determined. {It is perhaps significant that the court reporter in the Zündel trial, Hamm, did not give his name. In my first trial in Mannheim District Court, for the crime of acting as interpreter during a lecture given by Fred Leuchter in Weinheim in November 1991, he was an attending judge of the Nussbruch Court. Dr. Nussbruch, a member of SPD who introduced himself as a Jew, read aloud in Court a letter to the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that had been written by Michael Wolfsohn. Wolfsohn is an Israeli born Jew, possessor of a BRDDR passport, and professor of modern history at the Bundeswehr University in Munich. According to his letter 1.1 million persons, primarily Jews, were murdered at Auschwitz. The District Attorney at that time was represented by “my good friend” Hans-Heiko Klein, who has since enjoyed a distinguished and lucrative career as “Nazi Hunter and Holocaust Prosecutor.” Since that time I at any rate have been a “True Believer” in the magic number of Six Million: “Believe or Go to Jail!”} Growing still more agitated, Meinerzhagen adds that Auschwitz is nevertheless historical factuality.
QUESTION 6: Sylvia asks if it occurred to Meinerzhagen during the Zündel trial that the “witnesses to extermination” had extensively contradicted one another. {Here Sylvia is referring to contradictions between the official version of “Holocaust” and the conclusions in Fritjof Mayer’s article.} She notes that Mayer’s conclusions did not result in criminal charges against him. At 2:20 pm, Glenz hastily interrupts the proceedings, which resume at 2:52. Glenz rules that Sylvia’s questions regarding Meinerzhagen’s “subjective consciousness” have no relevance to the trial. His legal basis for this ruling is the Federal High Court’s “ständige Rechtsprechung“ (Ongoing Pronouncement of Law.) He further rules that any and all questions concerning Meinerzhagen’s awareness of “Holocaust” are inadmissible and prohibited.
QUESTION 7: Sylvia asks whether the widely varying opinions about the locations of alleged murders of millions of Jews at Auschwitz inspired doubt in Meinerzhagen’s mind. He refuses to answer, invoking Judge Glenz’s most recent ruling. When Sylvia calls on Glenz to allow Meinerzhagen to respond, Glenz replies that Meinerzhagen does not have answer. Again Sylvia demands a ruling by the entire Bench. After brief whispering among the judges, Judge Glenz announces that the Court supports his ruling.
QUESTION 8: Sylvia points out that for years it was assumed to be factual that several million Jews were gassed at Auschwitz, but this figure has now been drastically reduced. She now asks If the original witness statements are still considered valid, even though Auschwitz Museum Staff has reduced the official estimate of four million victims to around 1 million? Meinerzhagen elusively replies that Auschwitz is considered the principal site of Jewish extermination. He calls this “unchallenged historical fact.” His suddenly grows enthusiastic and his voice more animated. Glenz interrupts again and announces that questions pertaining to “subjective perceptions” of the witness are not allowed, since they do not pertain specifically to items in Sylvia’s indictment. Sylvia again demands a decision by the entire Bench. {It is necessary for her to demand such a decision, otherwise she would have no grounds for appeal to higher court, which is the BGH (BundesGerichtsHof).} The judges recess for conference from 3:15 until 3:20 and Glenz announces that the Court supports his ruling.
QUESTION 9: Sylvia then asks Judge Meinerzhagen if he was familiar with the Federal Parliament’s resolution concerning “Manifest Obviousness” at the time of the Zündel trial. {This resolution can be obtained from Sylvia or Horst Mahler.} Citing Judge Glenz’s ruling, Judge Meinerzhagen refuses to answer the question. However, in a burst of animation he says “But it is true!” to which Sylvia remarks that she would like to clarify the matter but the Court will not allow it. At 3:35 Judge Glenz again orders a recess to consider Sylvia’s question. “MM Mack,” the Reporter from the poodle newspaper Mannheimer Morgenblatt, then leaves the courtroom. {At the bottom of Page 3 in today’s issue of Mannheimer Morgenblatt (<www.morgenweb.de>) as well as the Weinheimer Nachrichten, there is a rather long article by Steffen “Mack the Knife” with the title “Holocaust Denial: Zündel Judge Testifies Before Mannheim District Court in Trial of Sylvia Stolz” and the subtitle “Witness Meinerzhagen and His Nightmare,” accompanied by a small passport photo of Meinerzhagen. Then follows the usual inflammatory article so typical of the German poodle press, written in the neoprimitivist style of BILD magazine.
Here are a few excerpts: “Judge Glenz allowed Stolz to bluster for five long days before imposing a time limit on her presentation... Stolz keeps on quacking in her high pitched penetrating voice, constantly attempting to support her crude theories of world conspiracies with absurd tracts... Her 71-year-old companion Horst Mahler, who spent the morning dozing among the onlookers, brings her a salad in a bag... The 44-year-old Stolz is a vegetarian, “just like Hitler!” she enjoys telling her audience... Meinerzhagen sits slumped in the witness chair... It is now for others to pass judgment on this woman.” Mack’s “reporting” is not just slanderous and irrelevant, it is untrue! Mack was sitting directly in front of me today while Horst Mahler was sitting in my row, several seats away. Since Mack never turned around, he could not possibly have observed whether Horst was dozing or not. I glanced at him several times and did not see that he was dozing. This is another example of the Poodle Press’s great reluctance to report what is actually said in this trial. Their idea of reporting consists of personal attacks and parroting official views.}
Proceedings resume at 3:52. The Court affirms Judge Glenz’s ruling that the question will not be allowed. Furthermore, Glenz threatens to take away Sylvia’s right to question witnesses if the Court suspects that she is abusing the right to question witnesses. Sylvia responds by explaining anew that her actions in the Zündel trial were justified in the context of Nothilfe (Emergency Measures). She had evidence and information that was relevant to her client’s defense, and she would have been remiss in her professional duties if she had not made the attempt to introduce them. Furthermore, she adds, justice demands that Judge Meinerzhagen’s subjective feelings must be considered, since he was the presiding judge in the Zündel trial. The Court remains in the room and whispers a good bit, and then Judge Glenz announces that the other judges support him. Sylvia refuses to give in and declares that she intends to oppose such repressive measures with all the means at her disposal.
Question 10:
Sylvia observes that, according to Judge Meinerzhagen, the “Holocaust” is a historical fact. She now asks him whether, as a jurist, he requires legal bases for his conclusions. She asks: what is the basis for his conclusion that “Holocaust” or the alleged extermination of Jews during the Third Reich is historical fact, since questions about the locations of the alleged mass murders and the number of victims have not been authoritatively established? Judge Glenz immediately interrupts her. At 4:07 the Court retires to confer on the admissibility of the question. At 4:17 Glenz announces that the Court must confer further. He concludes the day’s proceedings and announces the trial will continue on Thursday, 6 December at 9 am.
This evening, 5 December, a little after 10:00 pm a friend relayed a message from Sylvia with the news that tomorrow’s proceedings have been cancelled. The reason given is that the Court needs additional time to confer. In plain language this means that on coming Tuesday 11 December, we can expect a Court ruling forbidding Sylvia to continue questioning Judge Meinerzhagen.
Attorney Bock informed me that the court reporter of the Meinerzhagen Court, Hamm, will also be questioned as a witness.
The Court will not meet on Thursday, 6 December.
****************
Günter Deckert
Weinheim am der Bergstraße, den 5./6. Dezember 2007
*****************
POSTSCRIPT
These 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.
I wish to thank our sympathizers Lother E., Klaus f., and Dieter G., as well as Frau Ilona O. for their contributions to my expenses, as well as Giovanni G. in Sweden who is making monthly contributions for the duration of the trial.
It would be a very good thing if, despite the season’s wintry weather, the champions of objectivism in contemporary German history could appear in greater numbers. This would encourage Sylvia in her valiant struggle for her career as well as a balanced historiography. Not everyone still has to work, and a single day of vacation time would reward the visitor with eye-opening revelations about the courts and the absurd legal situation in the “freest country that ever existed on German soil.”
G.D.
****************