ON DAY 2 OF THE TRIAL OF POLITICAL PRISONERS MONIKA & ALFRED
SCHAEFER IN MUNICH
COURT DAY 2 July 3rd Tuesday:
Caption: Alfred Schaefer Released After One Night in Prison! (a small
Press, between 3-4 Security 6 (but feel there are people interested in
this case as I see security people sitting down with the audience for a
while, looking (body language) very alert and interested but not staying
very long(perhaps their break time?).
and stayed 12 (perhaps with one or two change in the people).
starts 12:42 (probably meant to start at 12:30? General Presentation of
the day: Very clear, precise and substantial. Unlike yesterday no time
was lost for trivial and petty issues like the greeting, arrest
declaration(of Alfred), and whether water could be available for Alfred
and Monika. Hence there was no booing, moans of comments from the
audience (unlike yesterday when there were several during the day,
culminating with Sylvia Stolzʼs arrest, post Court.( The problem
arose due to the fact that although the session was officially finished,
the Judge had not left the room yet when she stated that this Court/
session was “Terror” And everyone had to leave the court so she can
yesterday, the audience seemed content and satisfied with what was
happening at Court. Alfredʼs lawyer is Frank Miksch and
Monikaʼs lawyer is Wolfram Nahrath.
Monikaʼs turn. Hence Lawyer Frank Miksch read first. (After he
started there was one interruption/comment from the persecutor. Then he
continued again ʼtil the finish. Like yesterday there were many
quotes and documents quoted. Newspapers like Allgemein
Chronicle…. Gilad Atzmon and “Holocaust
Swindle” Gerald Menuhin…possibly his book (if so was only said in
rather longer section from Allgemein
Gazette..Words like, ʻhistoricalʼ
ʻobjectiveʼ and journalistic reports and names but I could not
really catch or recognize them. But basically the lawyer was trying to
show the absurdity of this law 130, or specifically 130.03, applicable
only on the German soil. So words like ʻabsurdʼ
ʻabsurdityʼ. Holocaust Lugen “psychological
law” The historical fact that Auschwitz plaque had been changed from 4
million to 1-plus million. So, why would ʻquestioning the
numberʼ be illegal. Words like”totalitarian state”were used.
And a constant reference to Bundesrepublik Deutschland something about
extreme Right, laws for 100 years.
was mentioned every now and then a quote from Richard Wagner on
the “predation” (of the Jews)? Also questioning the German law with
the expression Article this, Article that…etc. At 1:50 a 10 minutes
break until 2PM.
onwards… Another word used was ʻoffenkundigʼ not allowed to
question what is so obvious. Another reference often used was this
PARAGRAPH 6 of the German law. This would be repeated until the end.
Then there are names like Horst Mahler, Zundel, “Bomber Harris Do It
Again” in both German and English with obviously more explanation.
Staftlaw The the universality of the Law….including the Law of and for
Holocaust(Holocaustianity-my comment not his) discussed other
genocides/holocausts like Armenia that are to open debate and
questioning unlike the version for Judea. But that is not possible in Bundesrepublik
Deutschland. So other words mentioned, Ein
Volk, and Verboten(forbidden),
They were talking about precedent cases too. Horst Mahler, the
law=Article 5, often mentioned. And of course Paragraph 6.=exclusive to
Germans and to the period of the Third Reich ONLY.
was mentioned. Along with “confrontational” “provocative videos Mein Kampfs (our
Freiheit (our freedom) “Totalitarian …” “false
interpretation of history”. “Billigen und Miss(German S
here)billigen”-(Probably the definition for these words meaning
appropriate or inappropriate. Again Paragraph 6 and 130. Also mentioned
the fact that a Chinese dissident won a Nobel Prize while in jail. What
would be a historical interpretation of the Holocaust? Mentioned in
detail was the case of Bishop Richard Williamson, about what happened to
him, including being interviewed by a Swedish TV on German soil
and its consequences.
At 2:50, the
lawyer handed the 22 pgs or so paper to the Judge. In between the
Court Clerk came to tell the Judge that the bail has been deposited
(5000 Euros) and Alfredʼs passports(Canadian and German)
surrendered to the Court so that Alfred can be released from custody.
The Judge signed a document. This occurred around 2:30. Therefore at the
next break took place from 2:50 to 3:00 p.m. Alfred is greeted by
friends and his wife outside the trial area.
Lawyer talks now. Some articles of 2005, words like Auschwitz,
ʻLugenʼ(lie) and Dr.Stefan Godsta. Article 5 was mentioned
again. There was more quotations and documentation.
concluded at 15:25. Her lawyer handed the paper over to the Judge.
Somewhere in the day 2 ex-constitutional Judges, Hoffman-Reim and
Hassimer were quoted who had stated that the Holocaust Law should be
repealed. Then, the Prosecutor gave a kind of critique. She is critical
of provoking “emotionality” (provoking on purpose that?) First
Lawyer Frank Miksch responds (rather briefly) followed
by Lawyer Wolfram (much longer and observers said he responded quite
eloquently to the critique) stating that it is just Alfred's personal
style and emotions are natural and appropriate to what one is reading.
The Judge then thanks the 2 lawyers and says few words. There is a very
short pause. Then, the Judge continues, basically on how the proceedings
will be the following day. And other technicalities like the agreement
on showing Alfredʼs video. As well on the following day,
the Court will listen to Monika and Alfred's life, starting off with
finished around 4:30PM and will proceed at 10 tomorrow morning. -- CAFE
©-free 2018 Adelaide Institute