Sylvia to the presiding Judge:

"What are you afraid of? You are making a monkey of yourself!"

The struggle of "The German Joan of Arc"

The Holocaust-Heresy-Trials are a standing mockery of justice -- perhaps one of the most iniquitous that the arbitrary of man has ever devised -- a system which might well seem the invention of demons.
The Holocaust-Heresy-Trials are invented primarily to force public acceptance of a demonic creed the public does not want.

In a normal trial and in accordance with the United Nations' Human Rights Charter, truth is an absolute defense in a defamation lawsuit. However, in a Holocaust-Heresy-Trial truth is no defense.
Evidentiary motions relating what really happened are proscribed by German-Holocaust-Heresy-Courts.
Even scientists who challenge the official holocaust doctrine, or who preach politically-incorrect holocaust views, will be tried and punished. No evidential defense permitted. Researchers who refute that there was a mass-gassing program at work in Auschwitz will be tried as heretics under Germany's holocaust-denial-law. The accused are expected to self-incriminate and have no rights to prove their arguments with forensic and documented evidence. Holocaust-Heresy-Victims are not allowed to question and cross examine neither Jewish eye-witnesses nor other holocaust promoters. Eyewitness accounts are the only so-called evidence for the holocaust narrative<BR Please read the following excerpts of Günter Deckert's "Court-Room-Reports."

GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST HERESY TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany

"He who goes to Court or to sea needs God's help, but not even God can help someone caught up in a political show trial." - Dr. Siepmann, München

26 November 2007

"The German Joan of Arc" - Sylvia Stolz

Sylvia Stolz 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 "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, which is based 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.

Sylvia repeatedly asks the question: what is an attorney supposed to do when he or she is constantly discovering 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 of evidence that would help his or her client? 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 defaming the "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 court witnesses. Because of the influence of the Talmud, Jews have no inhibitions about bearing false witness against non Jews. Sylvia�s presentations go much too far for Glenz. He announces that he wants the Court instructions to be understood as an official admonition, specifically dictating this to the Court Recorder. Undeterred, Sylvia goes on to state that World Jewry now possesses the means, technique and influence to project and enforce their views worldwide. Sylvia observes that the Bench in this trial is attempting to hinder insight into Jewish thought and to present relevant and significant Jewish quotations as though such quotations were disconnected and taken out of context. She says that is the reason why, when introducing evidence, she intends to introduce Mahler�s testimony from his Berlin trial.

Sylvia then remarks on the obvious discomfort on the judges, who have firm instructions to avoid "providing a forum for Revisionism."

She points out that this is additional evidence that the Court is not concerned with establishing the truth: it does not allow material evidence. She says 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 in the process of crossing the "Rubicon of public shame and humiliation" and observes that authentic German law proceeds from a presumption of honesty, from the quest for truth and justice. She asks about the conscience of the jurists in this case: "What do you want? Do you just want to be left in peace? Which do you prefer -- to be heroes of the German nation and seek the truth, or to be despicable traitors who lack the will to pursue the 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 admonishes the judges that if they convict her they will lose all sense of honor, because they are not conducting a real trial, but a 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 "Holocaust" religion on Germany.

20 December 2007

"What are you afraid of? You are making a monkey of yourself!" Attorney Sylvia Stolz promulgates to Judge Rolf Glenz.

"The good in this world occurs through honor and steadfastness. He who betrays the ancient duties today will betray the new ones tomorrow." -- Adalbert Stifter, German poet from the Böhmerwald.

Sylvia begins her response to the evidentiary motions that Glenz denied on 18th and 19th December. Glenz now goes into action and demands that Sylvia submit her response in writing. Sylvia asks: "Wovor haben Sie Angst? Sie machen sich doch zum Affen!"  (Now what are you afraid of? You are making a monkey of yourself!) Losing his "cool," Glenz yells "I forbid you to speak!" and growls to the Court Reporter, "Write that down in the court record!" Grossmann chimes in as well and says in Sylvia's direction: "Geben Sie doch auch eine Abschrift an das Jüngste Gericht!" (Why not make a copy for the Final Judgment as well!)

Attorney Bock then presents his own motion on the subject of Manifest Obviousness, which is in two parts.

PART 1:
In Part 1 he moves that the Court read chapters 7 and 8 of Germar Rudolf's Expert Report (submitted yesterday) into the main proceedings. Since there is no chemist among the judges, Bock moves that the Court call an expert witness in order to assure that Germar's evaluations of chemical analyses contain no errors, from the scientific standpoint. In order to protect the expert witness from criminal prosecution in Germany's courts, in the event he or she should utter something that is politically incorrect, Brock suggests calling an expert from Israel. He adds that in a telephone interview with Germar's supervising professor for his PhD dissertation, the professor from the renowned Max-Planck-Institute assured him that Rudolf's Expert Report contains no errors whatsoever -- it is 100% correct. Under present censorship and taboos, Germar's professor would be risking criminal prosecution if he testified before this Court.

Bock reminds the Court that yesterday his client submitted an article by Herbert Pitlick entitled "Auschwitz -- Behauptungen und Sachbeweise" (Auschwitz: Allegations and Empirical Evidence). He says that this article can be of great assistance to the Court in ascertaining the truth if it is entered into the record. In the article, the author enumerates a large number of contradictions and incongruities associated with "Holocaust." Somewhat sarcastically, Bock observes that in the Court's obvious strivings to achieve justice in this criminal trial, an obvious awareness of such contradictions and incongruities can obviously introduce considerable doubt into the Court's hand-me-down conception of the obvious obviousness of "Holocaust," and such obvious doubt is obviously capable of causing this obvious "Manifest Obviousness" to appear as anything but obvious.

Bock points out that it is possible that the Court, after taking the Pitlik article into consideration, will reject "Manifest Obviousness" on rational grounds, because of its contradictions and incongruities. The exposition of "obvious obviousness" will not be sufficient unless the Court feels the need to protect itself from accusations from on high for the sake of "domestic tranquility." He adds that the "multiplicity of incongruities" in the Court's reading of the article might not be adequate. If this should be the case, he requests appropriate notification so that specific details can be provided -- they are not lacking!

His motion too is of course denied. Glenz says it is lacking in seriousness since it subjects the concept of "Manifest Obviousness" to disparagement. In other words, Glenz ruled that evidence, relating to the core of the holocaust have nothing to do with the holocaust. Glenz then asks if there are any more evidentiary motions for him to reject and Bock says no.

December 18, 2007

Sylvia points out the Court's duty to gather evidence and expert testimony. This consists of gathering personal data in order to determine whether what is quoted was really spoken or written in the manner depicted. Under present conditions, such determinations are enough for a summary verdict of "go straight to jail!" It reminds us of GULAG methods. She remarks that these "Holocaust" show trials could be expedited by simply making preprinted forms and filling in blank spaces with the victim's name and verdict.

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, or not? She points out that citizens who ask logical questions are demonized, isolated, defamed, persecuted and imprisoned.