TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1, July 2, 2018
by Lady Michele Renouf
the Right End of the Horse
I am here in Munich on the first day of the
Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her
German-citizenbrother Alfred). Upon my arrival at the Munich
courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts
today for Monika Schaefer) warned me not to remain in the courthouse
building (much less enter the courtroom ) as likely the same trick will
occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika ( while she
attended the attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018). This
was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off
from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the
Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials
spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery.
Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation
having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement
which carries a five years' custodial penalty following my ad-libbed
speech at the Dresden Commemoration. Wiser our attorney says - but
my call - that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make
reports from a nearby cafe when they provide me with a full account
during the intervals of the day's proceedings - as a more useful
option especially as I not able to comprehend German language
proceedings anyway if witnessing the process behind enemy lines.
I decided to take my attorney's advice as a more effective option (than
uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell ) and so am now sitting with
Henry Hafenmeyer as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time.
Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being
considered as the video maker ( though in fact, he was not Monika's
Though RA Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show
"International affection for the Schaefer siblings" she agrees
that my making a report to include this advice as given by my own
attorney in fact serves to strengthen the drama of the situation Alfred
and his sister Monika are facing in this Alice in Wonderland
anti-National Socialist non-Sovereign German legal-land where - 'first
we have the verdict then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants'
evidence' - is the nonsensical norm for historical sceptics.
Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his
awakening via the videos he has made. I am only anxious that the judge
may manage to forbid this exposee by him . The great disadvantage here
in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these processes. I shall
do my best to give you the proceedings from the horse's mouth.
Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by Attorney
Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the
two lay judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the
Press photographed them and while Alfred gave the Roman salute ( a
harmless gesture ludicrously outlawed in still Allied / all- lies
occupied Germany. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two
lay/Schaffe judges but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of
their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred's disdain as an
offence to the rules whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal
Republic of Germany illegitimate since he adheres to the standing
legitimacy of the German Reich.
In the "curiouser and curiouser" world of occupied-German law,
the judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to
drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be
interrupted in recess while they drank water! Alfred instantly demanded
a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed
from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of "inquisitional"
(as Alfred stated) power-playing to which fittingly Alfred added that
the court was but a clownish "Muppet Show".
Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for
complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public
gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press
the live microphone buttons. This instruction wilfully denies due public
access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his
introductory remarks, the judge demanded he give only a summary.
At this, his attorney and Monika's called for an interruption for two
hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges whom they
declared patently prejudicial to the defendant's right to express his
defence in full. The "Holocaust"-denial laws adhere to
those of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland wherein these
nonsensical trials precede via "first the verdict then the
evidence". No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious
heretics since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the
Holocaust on page 11 determine that: "Care must be taken not to
disprove the deniers' position with normal debate and rational
Even in the Allied occupier's land of Britain, not since 2008 has
the BBC permitted another World Service broadcast under the
title" Why Can't We Question the Holocaust?" In this unique
broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the
main guests on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the
public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist
victories presented instead of the standard Hollywood version of WW2
Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassimer and
Hoffman-Reim called for the repeal of the "Holocaust"-denial
laws there have been numerous valiant attempts to enlighten and embolden
the law-makers and law-proponents in today's Germany. Notably these
valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats
Ernst Zuendel, Dr Herbert Schaller, RA Rieger, Gerd Honsik, - and
Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Henry Hafenmeyer, Dr Rigolf
Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Gunter Deckert, Herr Froerlich,
Ursula Haverbeck, Sven L and Christian H to name but a few.
Today's opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the
tide to call for this anti-debate law to be called into question and
Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by
Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since
resumed and I await further news from the right end of the horse...
Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 6-8 which included
two supporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa
they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches,
and one from Bild the popular scandal sheet.
The Schaefer trial in Munich, afternoon session, Day one, Monday July
The trial resumed at 12.30 following the
two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred
Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge
Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias towards
the Defendant Alfred Schaefer. The Chairmen ruled that the trial
would continue under his authority until Wednesday
July 4th when the matter would be weighed.
The afternoon’s session commenced with
the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handed Alfred
an arrest warrant that he must spend an open ended period in police
custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the case.
Monika Schaefer achieved her commonsense
input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could
not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to
operate. By now the day’s session was already half over!
Alfred gave a four hour well-documented presentation of why the Federal
Republic was illegitimate. The Judge complained at the “broader
horizon” of the matters Alfred included. His 77 page
statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled
no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his
appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his sister.
At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must
be detained for two days in police custody (as opposed to jail) because
of his disdain for the authority of the Court, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed
the Process was unbelievable: “This is terror”. After all,
Alfred’s disdain of the court authority was of the essence to his own
When Sylvia then declined to explain to
the Judge what she meant by accusing the court rulings as terror, she
simply said “I am lost for words”, as were the stunned public
gallery who had never before witnessed such surreal events. By now
Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe since the Judge had ended
the day’s session. Yet the Judge insisted that Sylvia Stolz had
interrupted the proceedings rather than made her outcry allowable after
the afternoon session’s end. Sylvia was then given two days in
the cells for contempt of court. Oddly, the Judge failed to offer
her the usual option of a fine. Some in the public gallery
wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude
Sylvia’s percipacious presence during the coming days.
The State Prosecutor refused the request
from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaufer siblings to have a few moments to
say goodbye. But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika
Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed
the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must
leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathetically the
moving pathos they would witness that may pass between the siblings.
Lawyer/advisor Sylvia Stolz, Wolfram Nahrath,
Mr. Miksch (lawyer for Monika Schaefer), lawyer for Alfred Schaefer,
Alfred Schaefer, Lady Michele Renouf