Bill C said:
We're having a lot of the same here. It really bothers me more for
Britain though because of the long, proud history and contributions
they have made that are being buried under a collective guilt trip
that's been imposed on them. I feel the same way about Germany too.
There's an indefensible 20 year period out of 1500 years of culture and
contributions yet they have been beaten to death. The younger
generation was finally showing signs of being proud to be German again
when we left. It was a good thing to see.
I have been attending the Ernst Zundel trial at Mannheim, and but
for the tragic comedy of someone being tried for thought crime
because a spineless government bows to the zionist holoco$t lobby,
the trial would be a better farce than Aristophanes' Lysistrata.
What you have to understand at the outset is that Germany has no
constitution. Instead, the BRD/Bundesrepublik has something called a
"Basic Law" which is pretty Draconian. On paper, the BRD was installed
in 1945 as an interim government that would expire as soon as the people
would be able to elect a government to their needs and liking.
Now this "Basic Law" unctuously proclaims on paper that Germany is a
"democracy". It includes a lofty provision for Freedom of Speech and
Assembly.
However, the "Holocaust" is held to be so utterly "self-evident" that
there has
got to be an exception to prove a worthy rule, and therefore, a statute
called
Paragraph 130 was spawned. It is swung by obliging judges like a club
against
those who dare "sin" against anybody who, in parlance, who "defames the
memory
of the dead" and "incites the people" with questions challenging the
Holocaust.
"Legally", as Germany exists today, a defense based on facts and evidence
that
would show up the Holocaust as the concocted monstrosity it is, is utterly
impossible - and immediately brutally clubbed down by judges who are
willing to
please. Attorneys who try to defend those who run afoul of Paragraph 130
by
conducting themselves according to globally accepted standards of justice
merely
endanger themselves of contravening Paragraph 130. To paraphrase Orwell,
all
German people have free speech, but some have more free speech than others
- just
as nobody's dead must be defamed, but most can be defamed, as long as some
are
shielded.
The charges are under various statutes, acts and protocols, and some
unspecified
upon which the judge refuses to elaborate.
There are six attorneys making up the defense - three defense appointed,
and
three assigned by the government, ostensibly as "public defenders", whose
duty is,
as you and I surmise, to spy on strategy and move the trial to a speedy
conclusion
and conviction.
Now it so happens that one of these three "public defenders" is Dr. Bock,
a most
distinguished, white-haired gentleman whom the defence consider as being
on their
wavelength due to his long and vigorous defense of other defendants who
transgressed
against Paragraph 130. That leaves two dismayed fellows who "don't enjoy
the trust of
Mr. Zundel," as it was pointed out by one of the Zundel attorneys in one
of the hearings.
They sit behind the main team, out of earshot, fuming!
A young, attractive lady, Sylvia Stolz, is the lead Zundel attorney - a
genuine Magnolia
beauty hiding a spine of steel. From all I heard, Dr. Meinerzhagen, the
judge in this
trial, is no match at all against Attorney Stolz. She refuses to address
him by title.
He looks and acts apoplectic. When he talks, she talks, too - parallel.
When he pulls
the cord to prevent her from speaking, she turns around and addresses the
audience directly.
She is superbly unruffled and sweetly in control. She bests him with
every move.
To the glee of the courtroom spectators, Dr. Meinerzhagen has often
ridiculously lost his cool.
When an elderly woman laughed loudly at some of the point-counterpoint
sparring, he ordered
her up front and lectured an old lady as though she were a kindergartner.
When one of Zundel's
supporters called him a name that wasn't his name - comparing him to a
notorious judge in
those unmentionable times - he had the man arrested on the spot and thrown
in jail for 4 days.
When, after the hearing was over, a spontaneous Singing Quartet in the
audience launched the
first verse of "Deutschland über alles" - certain verses forbidden by
Germany's vigilant censors,
even though it is a song with a long, distinguished history that was not
dreamed up by the
Wicked Regime - Meinerzhagen fined the would-be Barbershoppers 200 Euros
apiece - a fine that
was immediately collected in the audience by disbarred Attorney Mahler
passing the hat.
The comedy goes on and on, from hearing to hearing, and it's tough to keep
all the high points
in the precise time sequence.
Earlier in the hearings, Meinerzhagen objected to disbarred attorney Horst
Mahler sitting behind
Sylvia Stolz since he is disbarred currently. Stolz responded that he was
merely an assistant and
that she had "mistakenly" thought that she could choose anyone she liked
as an assistant. The judge,
however thought differently and Mahler removed himself back to the
spectator area of the court room.
[Mahler defended the Bader-Meinhof conspirators before becoming a little
too closely involved
in protest himself and serving a jail term]
All this caused an uproar from the public provoking the judge to threaten
to lock the public out.
Stolz had requested a closed trial at one stage and this too was denied.
The point being that
any defense put up by the Zundel team, if made in open court, would render
the lawyers
themselves in contravention of Article 130, but a closed trial does not
suit the purposes
of the prosecution and it seems to Davey that attorney Stolz is reconciled
to being
prosecuted herself under that infamous article.
Stolz at one stage accused the judge of not being impartial, a fact self
evident to anyone in the
court, and appealed to a higher court to remove him since he would not
remove himself but that
ruse failed too as expected.
A couple of weeks ago Stolz was carried out of the courtroom. Attorney
Sylvia Stolz had been
excluded from the court , but she appeared in court and refused to obey
the order of Judge
Meinerzhagen. Thereupon, two female guards carried her out.
As she was carried out she shouted "Seit 60 Jahren verzichtet das deutsche
Volk auf seine
Freiheit, sich selbst zu regieren. Diesem schlechten Beispiel folge ich
nicht.
Richter Meinerzhagen stehe in der Tradition der Nürnberger Prozesse, 'des
Lynchens ohne Recht' ".
[For 60 years, the German people have resigned themselves to the fact that
they did not have
the freedom to rule themselves. I am not following that bad example."
Judge Meinerzhagen
functioned in the tradition of the Nuremberg Trials, "a lynching outside
the law."]
There is absolutely no truth to the reports in some media that she shouted
"Heil [censored]"
as she was being removed.
There is an appeal from Stolz' exclusion and more should be known this
week.
Surprisingly, the police and court officials seem very supportive of
Zundel and there
is a growing interest in the trial especially now that the cowardly Dutch
have deported
Siegfried Verbeke
Stolz defends herself against Meinerzhagen’s personal attacks against her:
On Behalf of the German Reich, Without Commission
SylviaStolz, Attorney at Law
Personal Response
In the Criminal Case of Ernst Zündel
District Court of Mannheim 6 KLs 503 Js 4/96
Following is my position regarding Dr. Meinerzhagen’s personal attacks on
me, which occurred
during the session of 16 February 2006 .
Dr. Meinerzhagen has seen fit to present the extraordinary course of the
main proceedings
as the result of “unprofessional conduct†on the part of the defense
attorney. He combined
that with the explanation that the court intends to ascertain the
possibility of removing
me from the trial. With this explanation he intends to mislead the
uninformed public about
events in the Zündel trial.
The chain of events described here began with my written Defense Brief
dated 18 October 2005 .
In this brief I outlined the basic lines of Mr. Ernst Zündel’s defense as
I intended to develop
them. I also requested a continuance of the trial until the Federal
Constitutional Court makes
its decision concerning the incompatibility of § 130 III StGB-BRD
(Paragraph 130 Section III)
“Incitement of the People in Form of Denying Holocaust†with individual
rights guaranteed by
the Basic Law.
The criminal court has the responsibility of deciding the matter on
grounds of factuality
and legality. In their ruling of 7 November 2005 Dr. Meinerzhagen, Mr.
Hamm and Ms. Krebs-Dörr
rejected the motions which I had submitted. Misusing their positions of
authority, they also
disseminated serious slanders against me. Without considering the factual
content of the defense
brief of 18 Oct 2005 , they quoted portions of the brief out of context ,
thus perverting its
meaning. They disqualified my presentation as “Incitement to Hatred
Against Jews
(§130 I Nr. StGB) and “Auschwitz Lie Presented in a Particularly
Aggressive Fashion.â€
They went so far as to use the expression “Incitement against the Jewish
populationâ€
to describe my reference to “die Richterschaft†(Page 3 of the ruling.)
Neither presiding judges nor their spokespersons are authorized to censure
a defense attorney
on account of her motion or other conduct of the trial or to declare her
conduct as culpable
or unprofessional. It is not the role of the court to supervise the
defense or to decide whether
the defense is carrying out its duties properly. The attorney for the
defense bears sole
responsibility for that defense; she is an independent agent in conduct of
the law.
I could have disregarded all that. I am aware that I have broken the most
rigidly enforced
taboo in the intellectual landscape of politically correct “Western
Values,†and I can endure
the aggressions released against me by violating such taboos.
What I can not tolerate is the proclamation by the above named persons that
“under no circumstances†will they allow “discussion of criminal
violations of
Paragraph 130 Section I during the main trial.†They threatened to
“vigorously reject every
attempt by the defense to publicly disseminate incitement†(Page 3 of
Ruling).
By “publicly disseminate,†Dr. Meinerzhagen, Hamm and Krebs-Dörr are
referring to my reading
in the main trial, the evidentiary exhibits I had announced in my
submission of 18 October 2005 .
The law clearly prescribes such a reading, however.
In the defense brief I had stated that in defending Mr. Zündel I would
attack the
“Offenkundigkeit des Holocausts†Manifest Obviousness of the Holocaust) as
dogma put forth by
Jewish organizations. I said I would prove with objective and
scientifically verifiable evidence
that this “Manifest Obviousness†has been illusory from its very inception.
The above named persons were perfectly aware of the weight of my argument
from the exhibits
submitted with the Defense Brief, namely the book “Lectures on Holocaustâ€
by Germar Rudolf
and the evidentiary motion by attorney Horst Mahler, which he had also
submitted in his own
behalf during the Berlin Judaism trial. My Defense Brief also included
references to the founding
speech by the expert on national and international law, Dr. Carlo Schmid,
before the
Parliamentary Council on 8 September 1948, as well as references to
Article 146 of the Basic Law
and references to ongoing rulings by the Constitutional Court that
reaffirm the continuing
existence of the Reich.
I also announced that I would submit evidentiary motions designed to prove
the following:
1) The Federal Republic of Germany is not a nation or state, but rather,
in Prof. Carlo Schmid’s
words, an “Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Domination†(OMF);
that is,
foreign domination that has not legitimate, but rather purely factual
significance;
2) The main victor of the Second World War, by means of this apparatus of
foreign domination and
in continuation of its war of annihilation against the German Reich, is
continuing to pursue
its war aim, which is the annihilation of the German nation as a racially
and intellectually
comprehensive community.
It is pursuing this war aim by means of psychological warfare,
specifically and in particular
with the “ Auschwitz cudgel.â€
3) Consequently, the prosecution of the German freedom fighter Ernst
Zündel constitutes a warlike
act by our enemies, who are using the courts of the OMF-BRD as an elite
troop against the
German nation, specifically in the realm of Holocaust legislation.
The signers of the court order dated 7 November 2005 are in fact declaring
their intentions
to keep these proceedings secret. In order to hide their true intentions,
they are prepared
to abandon legitimate criminal procedure and “muzzle†me by means of a
court ordered obligation
to present all motions in written form only, without benefit of reading
them aloud before the Court.
They would not have arrived at such a drastic decision if they had really
believed that the
arguments of the Defense were “ridiculous†and the attorney for the
defense “out of her mind.â€
There is nothing they would have liked better than to see me make myself
ridiculous with absurd
arguments for which there is no documentary or forensic evidence. However,
they now realize that
this is not going to happen. They know that the arguments of the defense
are factually irrefutable.
In Paragraph 130, Section III of Penal Code, the court ruling of 7 Nov
2005 includes the contention
that genocide of the Jews (called Holocaust) “is factually presumed†so
that “every defense motion
to prove this is disallowed†(Page 2 of ruling.) Let us put this statement
to a little test.
Given this tatbestandliche Voraussetzung (presumption that a criminal act
has been committed),
would not a judge still be required to rule in a Holocaust Denial case,
even If he himself
(possibly after reading a scientific study such as Germar Rudolf’s
“Lectures on the Holocaustâ€)
were convinced that the “Holocaust Industry†is a Jewish fabrication? Such
a ruling would
constitute a verdict against the truth as perceived by the judge. Any
judge who issued such
a verdict would be breaking his sworn oath, namely: “I swear to the best
of my knowledge and
conscience, to judge and to pursue no ends except truth and justice.â€
Would Dr. Meinerzhagen,
Mr. Hamm and Ms. Dörr-Krebs (judges in the present Zündel trial) sign
statements to the effect
that in such a situation, they would judge and act in violation of the
oath they took as judges?
This would be extremely unlikely.
The point to be made is: in reaching his verdict, a judge’s misgivings
about “Holocaust†clearly
constitute an obstacle to his deciding against conviction. When this
happens in a trial, the
efforts of the defense to create precisely this obstacle by means of
scientifically verifiable
evidentiary offerings cannot legitimately be suppressed as “alien to the
defense.†A motion to
present such evidence would in fact be the Königsweg (high road) to a
verdict of “not guilty,â€
thus making it incumbent upon counsel to follow this very path.
In view of this, do the above named jurists still persist in their illegal
and unethical refusal
to consider evidence? Do they prefer to leave it to chance and
co-incidence, whether or not, on
basis of his personal knowledge, a judge has doubts concerning “Holocaust?â€
The picture is rounded out by Dr. Meinerzhagen’s procedural disposition
announced on 16 February 2006
concerning Selbstleseverfahren, the introduction of the collected texts of
Ernst Zündel into the
main proceedings. The court wants a “ghost trial,†a show trial carried
out through secret proceedings,
in which the public can learn absolutely nothing about what is really
going on. From the very
beginning, Judge Meinerzhagen has illegally directed the prosecution,
repeatedly disrupted the main
proceedings with his machinations, and brought the entire trial to the
verge of collapse.
His rulings to muzzle me were acts of despotic supremacy placing „den
Makel der Nichtigkeit
auf der Stirn“ (“branding my forehead with the Stigma of Invalidity.â€)
I hereby give notice that I intend to oppose to the limits of my ability
this assault on the most
hallowed principles of German criminal justice. When I circumvent the
illegal rulings of
Dr. Meinerzhagen and explain the efforts of the defense to the public, I
am performing my duty
and exercising the right to defend Ernst Zündel and the German Reich.
Sylvia Stolz
--
Davey on the Road
