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.)
Sylvia Stolz Files Complaint against Bettina Mernitz
Introduction
In
conjunction with the hasty and disorderly
pronouncement of verdict in
the trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz on 14 January 2008, the Court, under
direction of Presiding Judge Rolf Glenz, illegally prevented orderly submission
of the appended motion. In addition the Court illegally prevented public
announcement of criminal charges against the court appointed Attorney Bettina
Mernitz of Mannheim, who had been planted in the defense by Mr. Glenz over the
Defendant’s objections. Attorney Stolz is now charging Attorney Mernitz with
betrayal of client under Section 356, Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code.
According to the Penal Code, motions may still be submitted for ruling by the Court until the time that the judge officially begins to pronounce the verdict, and the Court is required to rule on the motion before reading the grounds for the verdict. As a result of the treacherous and scandalous closing argument of this court appointed lawyer, the Court must now deal with the detailed response of Sylvia Stolz, attached. In order to deprive Sylvia Stolz of her of her right to consideration of the possibility of suspension of the trial, the Court again deliberately violated prescribed procedure on the closing day of the trial.
According to court procedure prescribed by the Penal Code, the presiding judge is required to publicly announce the verdict in open session. In order for this to occur, the presiding judge must first open the session in an orderly fashion. This occurs as follows: first, the members of the court enter and take their seats. Then the presiding judge officially declares the session to be open and makes certain that all trial participants are present and in their seats.
The Court Reporter officially notes this in the court protocol. Only then do the Court and everyone else rise to their feet, in order to hear the verdict while standing.
Between the opening of the session and announcement of verdict the District Attorney, Defendant and Defending Attorneys all have the right to speak and present one or more motions. The Presiding Judge is required to respond to this motion or motions and it is the duty of the Court Recorder to mention any failure to do so, as a significant omission. In case this should occur, the trial participants can demand a decision by the entire court and the corresponding ruling must also be entered into the protocol. Only after these procedural formalities are completed can the Presiding Judge begin reading the verdict.
In the case of Sylvia Stolz, the announcement of verdict occurred as follows:
The five judges marched rapidly into the courtroom and remained standing at their places. Without opening the session and determining whether everyone was present, Mr. Glenz hastily uttered the words “In the name of the people” even before Sylvia Stolz had opportunity to request permission to enter the motion appended hereto. Her spoken announcement of intention to speak, which she delivered during Mr. Glenz’s reading of the verdict, was rejected by Mr. Glenz with the remark that pronouncement of the verdict was already under way and no more motions could be submitted.
Sylvia Stolz
Rechtsanwältin
Hindenburgallee 11
85560 Ebersberg
Tel/Fax: 08092 / 24418
****************
Sylvia Stolz
Rechtsanwältin
Hindenburgallee 11
85560 Ebersberg
Tel/Fax: 08092 / 24418
Motion
In the Political Show Trial of Sylvia Stolz for Incitement
of the Masses and Other Charges Before Mannheim District Court – 4 KLs 503 Js 2306/06
I hereby move
That this trial be suspended until clarification has taken place of the criminal complaint of betrayal that has been entered against the court appointed “defending lawyer” Mernitz, as provided under Section 356, Paragraph 2 of Penal Code, for the specific reasons explained in the accompanying criminal complaint.
During the session of 10 January 2008, Attorney Bock, who has my fullest confidence, introduced in his summation, under provisions of Section 260 Paragraph 3 of Penal Code, a motion to suspend the trial on account of an insurmountable obstacle. He did this in conjunction with his motion to be released from his duties as defending attorney, which necessarily placed him in conflict of interests by exposing him to criminal charges. As basis for his motion he explained that the defendant was in fact deprived of any and all defense in view of the comprehensive denial of opportunity for defense against the complex of “Holocaust” charges, as practiced and imposed by the Court.
For any defense attorney who takes his duties seriously, such practice by the court includes the formidable risks that he himself will incur criminal charges. Attorney Bock pointed out that a free defense is bound by nothing except the obligation to observe the law and utilize his best judgment. Under the rule of law, the freedom to defend the accused is the indispensable precondition for a criminal trial. Attorney Bock based his request (to be relieved of responsibility in case of rejection of his motion for suspension) on the fact that for him it is unacceptable to serve as a “figleaf“ would to “cover the disgrace of this trial.”
Following Attorney Bock, my so-called “defending attorney,” who had been planted in the defense against my will, also addressed the Court. She insisted on contradicting every defense argument that we had presented and on attempting to depict our arguments as erroneous thinking. She was presumptuous enough to remark that I was “Irre” (insane), which she then watered down to “Irrende” (mistaken). She also referred to me as “ideologically blind.” The specific details regarding this betrayal of trust, as well as the specific indicators of her intent, are found in the attached criminal complaint, which is herewith transmitted to the representative of the District Attorney’s office for further action.
The Presiding Judge of the Court, Mr. Glenz, who assigned Ms Mernitz to my defense is the most likely accomplice in this unlawful conspiracy. The evidence pointing to clarification of his motives is likewise included in the criminal complaint. No juridical handstands are required to illustrate that a lawful trial cannot proceed after well founded suspicion has arisen that the Presiding Judge is manipulating the trial. In this trial it became clear that the presiding judge appointed an attending judge with intent to reinforce the arguments of the prosecutor and to create the impression, while acting within trial procedure, that the trial was proceeding in an orderly manner. The intent of the judge planted in the defense was to create the impression that the problems of the defense lay not in “Holocaust” law itself, but rather in some psychical delinquency of the accused.
Mannheim, 14 January 2008
Signed: Sylvia Stolz
Attorney at Law
****************
Sylvia Stolz, Attorney at Law
Hindenburgallee 11
85560 Ebersberg
Tel/Fax 08092/24418
Criminal Complaint
Against Attorney Bettina Mernitz of Mannheim for judicial betrayal as provided under Section 356, Paragraph 2 of the German Penal Code.
The Facts of the Case
In the show trial conducted against me for incitement of the masses and other charges before the Mannheim District Court (Case 4 KLs 503 Js 2306/06), Presiding Judge Rolf Glenz placed the accused Bettina Mernitz on my defense team over my objections. There was no legal necessity for this, since the court at my request had already appointed Attorney Ludwig Bock of Mannheim as defense attorney. The accused sat silently in the courtroom throughout the trial and made her presence known only at the conclusion of the trial, at which time she delivered a summation. This summation was short but consequential for the outcome of the trial. According to my notes, Bettina Mernitz presented essentially the following summation. I have compared my notes of her summation with notes made by observers of the trial.
The Trial Summation of Bettina Mernitz
...It is of course a particular challenge to defend someone who does not wish to be defended, especially by me. The fact that Sylvia Stolz did not wish for me to defend her was obvious from the beginning. She asked me to sit apart from her so as not to disturb the confidentiality of her discussions with Mr. Ludwig Bock, the attorney of her choice. She accepted advice only from the attorney of her choosing. She rejected all my offers of advice. (1)
FOOTNOTE 1
With this declaration, Bettina Mernitz violated her attorney’s oath of confidentiality. On account of the constitution of the defense team, the court could conclude negative internal tensions from my rejection of Bettina Mernitz’s offer of legal advice. The objective aspect of the facts of the case alone necessitated my maintaining secrecy, and the accused was well aware of this.
********
...I am a passionate defending attorney and I defend everyone who needs defending. I agree with Max Alsberg, who said that everyone deserves defending. Everyone is innocent at the beginning. Think of the conversation of the attorney with his son who asks, “what did your client do?” The attorney’s response is “nothing at all. He is ACCUSED of having done something.” People ask me, “How could you accept such a client?” and I tell them that there is no client whom I would refuse to defend. I defend everyone.
However, I do not share my client’s ideology. I do not share the ideology of a murderer or a pedophile, and I do not share the ideology of Sylvia Stolz. (2)
FOOTNOTE 2
Bettina Mernitz made this remark solely to justify herself in front of the mob. From the very beginning she denigrated my motivation for the conduct of my defense, although it was thoroughly appropriate to the circumstances surrounding my trial. She indirectly slandered me by identifying my motivation with what she called the “ideology” of murderers and child molesters.
********
...I believe in “Holocaust.” I am convinced of the murders of millions of human beings. One must not doubt such things.(3)
FOOTNOTE 3
Mernitz was well aware that the main point of my defense is the thesis that in trials of so-called “Holocaust” deniers, the defending attorney has an obligation to present all the facts of the case, through evidentiary motions. The defense attorney is obligated to introduce all facts that, in keeping with the principle of “when in doubt, favor of the defendant,” have the potential of heading off the prosecutor’s attempt to rule out the possibility that the proscribed utterances are expressions of honestly held conviction rather than malicious or deceitful intent. It is clear even to the dullest pupil in the class that the word leugnen (to deny) is derived from lügen (to lie), as is explained in Kluge’s Etymological Dictionary. We can also safely assume that Bettina Mernitz is fully aware that in Holocaustleugnungsanklagen (indictments for “Holocaust” lying/denial), the primary focus is on a detailed presentation of the indicated distinction. The criminal betrayal of the client can also consist of neglecting or failing to pursue the client’s interest (Bay OLG NJW 59, 2223;HRR 37, 1281; LK Rn. 39 zu § 356; Dreher/Tröndle, Rn. 6 zu § 356).The criminal conduct of Bettina Mernitz is not limited to mere neglect or failure to fully perform her duties, however. Even worse than mere dereliction of duty, she utilized the opportunity of her summation to make her personal declaration of faith before the Court: “I BELIEVE in “Holocaust... One must not have doubts about it.” This is clearly designed to greatly weaken the defense argument, which I have explained above. The courtroom is not the appropriate forum for a defense attorney’s personal professions of faith, especially when these personal professions run counter to the arguments of the defendant. If the defendant’s honest convection that “Holocaust” cannot have occurred in the precise way it is officially decreed, is not evaluated according to the empirical facts of the case, then it should at least be treated as an “honest mistake” and punished with less severity than if the forbidden opinion had been expressed with “evil intent,” when the Court deliberates punishment.
********
...I resolved to defend Sylvia Stolz not with thundering drums and snares, but rather with softer tones. Softer tones would have helped her better. It is possible to gain a lighter sentence with softer tones.(4)
FOOTNOTE 4
Here Bettina Mernitz attacked me from the rear, even with her alleged “defense philosophy.” From the very beginning she ruled out the possibility of my exoneration. She strove for nothing except a “milder sentence.”
********
...I would like to gain a lighter sentence for her along the way. I listened closely to what Sylvia Stolz said, especially in her opening address. For example, she said that she had been indicted for doing her job, for exercising her profession. She said it is part of her professional duties to submit motions that will exonerate her client. She said she did not study law in order to turn a blind eye to injustice. She said she is concerned with truth, with what is good and just. She claimed to be defending truth and the German nation. All this clearly suggested to me that Sylvia has a false understanding of the duties of the defense attorney.(5)
FOOTNOTE 5
Only Bettina Mernitz can know what she allegedly wanted to impart to me, since with her remark that I “misunderstood the tasks of the defense attorney” she lent powerful impetus to the prosecutor’s motion to disbar me. The truth is, of course, that the defending attorney is obligated to STRICT PARTIALITY during a trial (Dreher/Tröndle Run. 6 zu § 356; Rest 66, 104). Coming from a supposedly impartial source, such prattling reflections as Bettina Mernitz blurted out are forbidden in principle for the defense, since they work to the detriment of the defendant.
********
...Perhaps this is explained by her inadequate forensic experience.(6)
FOOTNOTE 6
Again, this remark about my alleged “inadequate forensic experience” is clearly intended to weaken my argumentation. It must be emphasized that nothing, absolutely nothing had been mentioned about anyone’s “forensic experience” in the trial. Again, the very opposite of Bettina Mernitz’s assertion is true. There is more than ample evidence that I have been actively involved in numerous criminal trials, and from this activity I have amassed unique experience in the area of “Holocaust” litigation.
********
...She has anxieties that do not allow her to concede the slightest point where she is personally concerned.(7) Otherwise, why would she refuse to reveal her curriculum vitae in her address to the Court? She uses the political persona “Sylvia Stolz” as her protective armor.(8)
FOOTNOTES 7 & 8
Mernitz’s amateurish speculations that I was afraid to disclose “anything at all” about my life on account of “anxieties” and that I was using a “Sylvia Stolz political persona” is more evidence of her malicious endeavor to denigrate me and damage my defense in every way.
********
...The defending attorney is an inherent part of the practice of law, an independent element of legal practice. It is not the defending attorney’s task to achieve acquittal at any price, even though this may be the present day legal gospel according to Barbara Salesch.(9)
FOOTNOTE 9
Even Bettina Mernitz’s “lesson” on the task of the defending attorney that she included in her summation supported the effort to have me disbarred. It is obvious that she was trying to use me as an example of someone who lacks even the most elemental qualities of a defending attorney. Bettina Mernitz does not bother to analyze my defense strategy in the cases of Ernst Zündel and Dirk Reinecke. Such an analysis would have shown that in those cases my actions were entirely commensurate with the task of the defending attorney, which is to avoid a verdict that is unfavorable to the client, by the energetic demonstration of truth and the exposure of lies. Instead of examining these cases, she chooses a blanket criticism of my activities as defending attorney, exactly as the indictment does.
In doing this she puts an irrational statement in my mouth by implying that I have said that the most important thing for the defending attorney is to achieve “acquittal at any price.” Once again, with her fanciful formulations of my conceptions of the tasks and duties of the defending attorney, Mernitz supported the prosecutor’s demand that I be disbarred.
********
...She (Sylvia Stolz) quoted Max Alsberg on the subject of “historical certainty,” “sterile skepticism,” “critical attitudes,” and “consciousness of ignorance.” She pointed out that the famous defense attorney Hans Dahs described legal defense as “Kampf” (struggle).
I fear Sylvia Stolz takes the work “Kampf” quite literally. The Zündel trial reminded me of a battlefield at times.(10)
FOOTNOTE 10
Regarding events in the Zündel trial, without having even witnessed that trial, Bettina Mernitz uncritically adopts the prosecutor’s point of view. She is doing this in order to make the Court and the public believe that the effort of the defense attorney to counteract obvious bending of the law is to be interpreted as result of misunderstanding the remark by Hans Dahs that legal defense should be understood as adversarial struggle.
********
...A trial is a cooperative endeavor for the achievement of truth and justice, a process of mutual conciliation.
The defense attorney must not allow himself or herself to be taken in by his or her client. He or she has to resist a reckless solidarity with the client, otherwise he or she does the client more hard than good. Adversarial defense at all costs seldom leads to success in the courtroom.(11)
FOOTNOTE 11
With all her pious rattling and venerable platitudes, Bettina Mernitz was here trying to hide the fact that in both the Zündel and Reinecke cases, I demonstrated factually that the defendants should have been acquitted. An impartial court would find their convictions to be proof of the unlawful prejudice of the “Holocaust” judges. I had clearly demonstrated that the subject judges have the obligation to ask themselves the question of whether citizens charged with denying “Holocaust” can legally be sentenced under Section 130 Paragraph 3 of Basic Law in case these judges (perhaps on account of reading Germar Rudolf’s Lectures on the Holocaust) are convinced that “Holocaust” is nothing but hearsay or “common knowledge”: that is, it did not occur because it could not have occurred. I presented the argument that any judge who convicted a defendant for denying “Holocaust” in spite of that judge’s own convictions and perceptions of the truth would be making himself liable to criminal charges. Instead of assisting in my defense by supporting the line of argument that I had developed in detailed written explanations, Bettina Mernitz said in her summation that it is a mistake for the defense attorney to “allow herself to be taken in” by her client. Mernitz further opines that the defense attorney should “avoid reckless solidarity with the client.” Again, her summation aided the prosecutor’s efforts to disbar me. Of course there is a danger of “reckless solidarity” with the defendant if an attorney defends the honor of his or her nation against the historical lies of the enemy. If such an attorney discloses the truth and is consequently prosecuted in a show trial fashioned after the Allied Military Tribunal in Nuremberg, that attorney is liable to be deprived of his or her freedom for several years. However, any other conception of the duties of a defense attorney would be treachery and a disgrace to his or her professional integrity.
********
...But what did Sylvia Stolz do? She felt justified, even obligated to pursue her course of action. She claimed that the Court had “bent the law” in the Zündel trial.
However, it is not true that the court bent the law.(12)
FOOTNOTE 12
Here Bettina Mernitz was referring to my main defense argument, namely that my unusual conduct in the Zündel trial and my reliance on the argument of emergency defense were caused by the necessity of fending off a real and present danger. This danger was an unlawful attack on my client (in this case, a manifest bending of the law by Mr. Meinerzhagen in his capacity as presiding judge in the Zündel trial.) Bettina Mernitz obviously saw her first duty to be the refutation of this defense argument, as evinced by her succinct remark that Mr. Meinerzhagen did not bend the law in the Zündel trial.
********
...Sylvia Stolz is insane – she is mistaken.
She is mistaken about the existence of grounds of justification for her assertion that the court bent the law...(13)
FOOTNOTE 13
In order to create the impression that my emergency defense of Ernst Zündel was unworthy of serious consideration, Bettina Mernitz characterized me as “Irre” (insane.) The fact that she then attempted to dilute this outrageous remark with an ostensibly corrective formulation, namely that I was just “eine Irrende” (mistaken), does not diminish the legal significance of this personal attack. Both expressions were calculated to suggest to the Court that my defense arguments were bizarre and erroneous.
********
...That was an error of Verbotsirrtum (Mistake of Law).
The question arises of whether the mistake could have been prevented. High demands are imposed in such cases, and Sylvia Stolz / must have been aware of the hard line implied by the court ruling.(14)
FOOTNOTE 14
In order to avoid serious consideration of the possibility of a less severe sentence being imposed on me, Bettina Mernitz was here accumulating arguments that counteracted such considerations.
********
...Throughout the trial, Sylvia Stolz claimed that she was acting out of conviction. She described how it came about that she adopted her convictions. To illustrate these, she opened some books by Germar Rudolf. She said that Horst Mahler influenced her as well. Obviously, the influence of Horst Mahler was very extensive.(15)
FOOTNOTE 15
In order to diminish my dignity as a self-reliant defending attorney acting from my own convictions, Bettina Mernitz attempted to portray me as a puppet of my colleague, Horst Mahler. In doing this she was supporting and reinforcing the thesis of the prosecution, namely that I was criminally enabling my colleague Mahler in circumlocuting his legal disbarment. It is an incredible hypocrisy on Bettina Mernitz’s part when she suggests that she would have presented my alleged dependency on Mr. Mahler as grounds for a lighter sentence - the only grounds she introduced!
********
...I observed this: Horst Mahler’s written instructions on how to conduct the trial came from the rear to the fore.
In addition, Sylvia Stolz painted a picture of the court as a puppet theatre. In reality, however, Sylvia Stolz was the puppet and Horst Mahler was the puppeteer.(16)
FOOTNOTE 16
In an attempt to lend credence to her hypocrisy, Bettina Mernitz introduced capricious observations into her summation that were not even part of my trial. Obviously she was collaborating with the Prosecution in an attempt to buttress the equally unfounded and insubstantial allegation by District Attorney Grossmann that I had been “brainwashed” by my colleague Horst Mahler.
********
...This could serve to lighten her sentence, since
she is guided from afar.(17)
FOOTNOTE 17
The fact that Bettina Mernitz delivered her opinion concerning my being “guided from afar” without presenting any facts to support this allegation is further evidence that it was never her intention to achieve a lighter sentence for me.
The fact that the defense documents I submitted in the various “Holocaust” trials are similar “almost word for word” is obviously attributable to the fact that in all of these trials, the prosecutors used identical contents and legal arguments “almost word for word.” If, as Bettina Mernitz claims, the documents “came from the same pen” this could be because the defendants had the same attorney, namely myself. In order to avoid appearing “suspicious,” must the defense attorney now be inspired with new and unique formulations for old and familiar thoughts?
********
...I have read through everything that Sylvia Stolz submitted. The motions in these trials are almost identical in wording. It is as though the documents all written by the same pen.(18)
FOOTNOTE 18
With her image of a puppet theatre, Bettina Mernitz was attempting to dissuade the court from considering the possibility that my collaboration with my colleague Horst Mahler might be anything but a violation of his disbarment.
********
...She acted as though guided from afar, like in a puppet show. These are definitely grounds for a reduced sentence. Sylvia Stolz is ideologically blinded.(19)
FOOTNOTE 19
Again Bettina Mernitz is attempting to detract from the significance of my argumentation, this time with the suggestion that I am “blinded by ideology.”
********
...She has made contacts with people who live in the past; contacts that she could make nowhere else.(20)
FOOTNOTE 20
With complete irrelevance to everything discussed in the trial, Bettina Mernitz then made the derogatory suggestion that I have not “made connections” with something (she does not specify what), and therefore have devoted myself to “living in the past.” This is a gratuitous personal defamation that did not occur even to the prosecutor!
********
...I myself am fortunate to have been born too late to experience the horrors of the War, and so I was not influenced by them. For me the question arises of why Sylvia Stolz, who is younger than I, came to identify with the horrors of the War. This is most probably because she finds acceptance and admiration (in the circle of those who live in the past), an acceptance that she finds nowhere else.(21)
FOOTNOTE 21
In order to evade the question of my motivation – which could be a sense of honor perhaps, or love of truth and sense of justice -- Bettina Mernitz psychologically assumes that I am motivated by a desire for “acceptance and admiration.” Again, the prosecutor himself could not have formulated a “better” expression.
********
...Sylvia Stolz is a tragic figure, someone who deserves our pity. The proper goal and task of the defense attorney remains unknown to her.(22)
FOOTNOTE 22
Concerning the prosecutor’s demand for disbarment, Bettina Mernitz was obviously not confident that the support she had given to the prosecutor up to that point would be enough to assure the prosecution’s success. For this reason, and for good measure, she added what she thought would be the final decisive blow: she opined that “the genuine professional task of the defending attorney remains unknown” to me. In her view, the defending attorney is not allowed, even in an emergency situation, to “struggle” for justice and for the rights of his or her client. According to Bettina Mernitz, the attorney should limit himself or herself to “communication” (by bargaining with judges who bend the law?) and to “dialog” (with lackeys of a vassal government who have nothing but contempt for legal procedure?). I on the other hand believe that the defending attorney is not only allowed to struggle for justice and the rights of the client, but is actually OBLIGATED to do so!
********
...The task of the defending attorney goal is to strive for justice and legality. Not through struggle, but through communication and dialogue, as Max Alsberg has expressed it. He was a German and he was a Jew. I shall close with a quotation of Goethe that Sylvia Stolz has repeatedly abused.
“Fortunate is he who can still hope to surface from beneath the ocean of error”(23)
FOOTNOTE 23
Even Bettina Mernitz’s remark that I “misused quotations of Goethe” was intended to detract from my arguments, with the obvious intent of strengthening the tendency of the court to turn a deaf ear to all my arguments.
********
There are good reasons to suspect that Presiding Judge Glenz planted Attorney Bettina Mernitz in my defense team with intent to neutralize the efforts of my chosen defense attorney in the ways I have demonstrated above, and to neutralize my own efforts to ward off an arbitrary verdict. Mr. Glenz was well aware that he was facing an unusually challenging task in my trial and that his conduct of the trial of an attorney who has vigorously defended political dissidents would be scrutinized far beyond the confines of Mannheim. We can assume that in choosing an agent to plant in my defense, Glenz considered who would be most helpful in dealing with news coverage by the established media. He needed an appointee who would help force the meaningful trial events into the background and keep them there. Even the Mannheim court still considers it important to maintain the façade of a legal defense.
My examination of Bettina Mernitz’s “defense summation” has demonstrated that it lacks the minimal competency and essential points of information that would be essential for a defense argument. Furthermore, we may safely assume that Mr. Glenz had frequent opportunities to observe Bettina Mernitz carrying out her court appointed duties and to evaluate her obvious deficit of knowledge and abilities in executing them. He will also have observed that Bettina Mernitz exhibits great enthusiasm for accommodating the expectations of presiding judges. Experience shows that presiding judges tend to make their professional lives easier by appointing defense attorneys who cooperate with the aims and desires of the Court. This is widely acknowledged as a scandalous and generalized abuse in trial defense in present day Germany.
It will be an easy task to determine whether Bettina Mernitz belongs in the category of “defenders” who professionally or economically cannot stand on their own two feet. These economically and professionally challenged attorneys are dependent on court appointments, entirely or in part. Therefore they do not dare to conduct an adversarial defense. I have demonstrated that Bettina Mernitz’s “defense summation” contains numerous samplings of her concept of the duties of the defense attorney, samplings that fit exactly into a pattern of submission and sycophancy toward her employer. It will be an easy task also to determine the number of times Bettina Mernitz has served as defending attorney in the Mannheim courts as compared to the number of times she has been APPOINTED to serve by the same courts, and it will be just as easy to determine how often Mr. Glenz has used her services as court appointed lawyer.
Additional evidence of opportunities for collusion between Mr. Glenz and Bettina Mernitz might come to light if it turns out that Mr. Glenz and/or Bettina Mernitz share in Jewish ethnicity. In that case we would have to consider the possibility of profound collusion between the two, an involvement that, owing to the peculiar nature of Judaism, would necessarily develop if in their view it were necessary to fend off an attack against Judaism or an individual Jew. In further explication of this problem I refer you to the evidentiary motion concerning Judaism written by Horst Mahler, which is highly relevant to this trial and is included among the trial documents. I find this evidence to be most convincing, and I have submitted it as an evidentiary motion in the Zündel trial as well as my own trial.
Mannheim, 14 January 2008
Signed: Sylvia Stolz
Attorney at Law
Related Articles: