New Round of Stolz Trials
Translated from the German
by J M Damon, who regrets he was unable to translate it
The translation is
available on request as an MS Word document.
to the Stolz trials: in January 2008, Attorney Sylvia
Stolz, known as the “German Joan of Arc,” for her
spirited defense of dissident patriots,, was sentenced to 42
months in prison by Mannheim District Court and immediately
thrown in chains.
For Günter Deckert’s
on-the-spot account of that, visit <www.loveforlife.com.au/node/3372>
There is more at stake in
the present struggle than the fate of individual
Revisionists. The whole Enlightenment concept that judicial
truth should be based on empirical evidence rather than
authoritarian decree is in jeopardy - see the article by
Prof. Egon Flaig at <www.codoh.com/newsite/sr/online/sr_155.pdf>
We are very indebted to Günter
for his reporting of political trials in Germany.
His sympathetic accounts
offer the only alternative to the biased and incomplete
accounts in the “Establishment” press.
Reported by Günter Deckert
New Round of Stolz Trials
First Day, 18 March 2009
(Date of the Beginning of the Revolution of ‘48 -
the Struggle for a Constitution Goes On)
Introductory Remarks: For the most part the High Court in
Karlsruhe upheld Attorney Sylvia Stolz’s conviction in
Mannheim District Court, including her five-year disbarment.
However, it did overturn her convictions on several lesser
counts, which necessitated new hearings in order to somewhat
reduce her prison time.
On page 3 of Tuesday’s Mannheimer
(MM) there is a column entitled “Prospects
for a Lighter Sentence” written by Steffen Mack (“Mack
the Hack”) whom we know all too well as an unflinching
champion of repression .
On 17 March, he was the only representative of the
Establishment media who remained for the entire proceedings.
The title of Mack’s article in today’s paper is
“Abstruse Abschweifungen” (Abstruse Digressions).
[It sounds cuter in German - TR.]
On the side street near the courthouse there are a patrol
van and passenger car with 15 uniformed police, including
There is the usual fun and games as we enter the building.
It is the same as at the airport, intended to suggest that
the Court public have to be protected from Revisionist
As the proceedings open there are about 35 visitors plus
four “staschu” (Staatsschutz) agents, the updated
“stasi” (Staatssicherheit), the political police of DDR
Among them is the notorious individual known as “the
They are wearing civilian clothes.
There is also a Japanese legal intern observer.
Several visitors have come from afar, including Andreas K.
of Berlin and Dieter D. of Basel.
None of the spineless leaders of the National Party are
At 9:07, accompanied by Attorney Ludwig Bock, Sylvia appears
from the courthouse lockup.
She is frail and pale, her first year in prison is showing
Defendants serving prison terms are kept in windowless
basement cells with a cot and immediately returned there
during court recesses.
At noon there is a very scanty meal – I speak from
experience, as I too was confined here on several occasions.
The members of the 6. Große
(Sixth Superior Criminal Court) enter at
On account of his crowded schedule, our friend Judge
Meinerzhagen (“Judge Nein”) and his henchmen have turned
this hearing over to the “B Team.”
The team of three professional judges is headed by Presiding
Judge Olaf Rinio and includes one woman, while both lay
judges are women.
All appear to be around 40 years old.
District Attorney Andreas “Holo” Grossmann, assisted by
a female intern, sees no reason why Sylvia’s 42-month
sentence should be reduced.
She did, after all, defend dissidents and express
politically incorrect opinions!
Two bailiffs and five armed policemen are also present to
protect the Court – the FRG is taking no chances with
As proceedings get under way there are 12 media
representatives and two photographers present.
Both photographers leave as soon as the Court is called to
Among the mainstream reporters we recognize “The
Gorilla” from BILD, familiar from last year’s trial, as
well as “Mack the Hack” of Mannheimer
along with a lesser scribbler from Die
The female thirtysomething from dpa
(Deutsche Presse Agentur
is here again, still wearing jeans that are much too tight.
At 9:12 the presiding judge begins reading the verdict of
the Glenz Court in a monotonous and barely audible voice.
At 9:55 he announces a ten-minute recess, resuming at 10:12.
By now half the media people have already left, including
the reporter from BILD.
The uniformed protectors of the State are also somewhat less
Now there is only one bailiff and three armed policemen.
The entire gang of “staschu” agents is still present,
After reading the verdict of the lower court, Presiding
Judge Rinio reads the appeal verdict of High Court.
This could be seen as a slap on the wrist for “Holo”
Grossmann, Glenz & Co.
It is designed to show how correct the present Court is, how
ready and eager to compensate for any minor excesses that
might have been committed during Sylvia’s first trial.
Judge Rinio finishes reading at 11:02 and asks Sylvia for
remarks concerning her person or her case.
She has no personal remarks, but she wants to address the
matter of her case.
She requests a short recess, the judge grants it, and
proceedings resume at 11:19.
Sylvia begins by saying that since length of incarceration
is the only issue in this trial, the questions of
criminality and the intent of her actions while defending
attorney are of primary significance.
She points out that the so-called Federal Republic of
Germany is NOT a free and sovereign state, as Prof. Carlo
Schmid, the father of the FRG’s Grundgesetz
(Basic Law) explained on the occasion of its adoption in
Seeking an alternative to the term “puppet government”
that would be acceptable to the victors of World War II,
Prof. Schmid referred to the FRG as an Organisationsform
einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft (Organizational Form of
a Modality of Foreign Rule.)
Sylvia points out that if the FRG were a free and democratic
state, attorneys would not be imprisoned for defending their
clients and citizens would not be imprisoned for expressing
Turning to the visitor’s section, she delivers greetings
to all “Citizens of the Reich.”
Sylvia then enumerates the charges of which she has been
exonerated on appeal, then moves to her actions and strategy
in the Zündel trial.
Since she was the attorney for the Defense, it was her
professional duty to convince the Court of the innocence of
However, the Court refused to consider the possibility that
Ernst Zündel might in fact be innocent of wrongdoing.
The court consistently rejected her evidentiary motions,
ruling that every single one was “irrelevant.”
Sylvia points out that a verdict of guilt assumes that it
was the intent of the defendant to deliberately lie -- that
is, to consciously maintain something that is untrue while
Then she begins enumerating the evidence and the witnesses
that caused her to begin doubting the official
historiography of “Holocaust.”
She says that, in the interest of her client Ernst Zündel
as well as her own clarification, she had no doubts about
her professional obligation to submit the evidentiary
motions that were interpreted as “criminal acts” under
Section 130 of the Strafgesetzbuch (Penal Code).
She says that her first motion to submit evidence concerned
an expert legal report that had been commissioned by the
Court and prepared by Prof. Jagschitz of the University of
Vienna in April 1992, in the trial of Gerd Hansik in Vienna
Then Sylvia quotes at length Prof. Ernst Nolte, who
insisted: “In the realm of science, everything must be
She addresses the question of whether historical
revisionists are pursuing authentic arguments or mere
Then she discusses the doctoral dissertation of the French
Jewess Olga Wormser-Migot, Le système concentrationaire
nazi de 1933 – 1945, written in 1968, in which the latter
establishes that there were no homicidal gas chambers in
German concentration camps.
Next she discusses the writings of Simone Veil née Jacob,
President of the European Parliament, who was said to have
been gassed, and then the recent study by Fritjof Meyer.
These prominent persons all give highly conflicting
statements, demonstrating contradictions that continue to
raise genuine doubts about “Holocaust” in scientific
(Reprints of the Meyer article as well as the rejection of
my complaint against Meyer that was filed with the District
Attorney are available from me or from Faksimile Verlag /
Pf. 330 404, (D) 28334 Bremen.)
Then Sylvia repeats her question: is an attorney not allowed
to take this into consideration in defending the client?
Is an attorney not allowed to submit relevant evidentiary
motions for clarification of the facts of the case?
Why does the present legal system in Germany criminalize the
professional activities of the conscientious attorney?
What is the reason for this outrageous state of affairs in
the German legal system?
She arrives at the conclusion that is obvious to every
thinking person: doubts and questions must be allowed in
legal trials -- in fact the Court should demand that the
defending attorney raise doubts and questions!
Attorneys must be free to ask questions and express doubts,
if there is to be any semblance of justice in the German
She points out that “Holocaust” historiography has been
raised to the level of a new state religion.
It is comparable to that of medieval times in every way,
except that torture and burning at the stake have not yet
been reintroduced as punishment for heresy, and these will
also be reintroduced, if present trends continue.
Today’s “Holocaust” Inquisition never fails to convict
the accused and imprison dissenting opinion.
To be indicted is to be convicted!
Sylvia makes the observation that among this
Inquisition’s “noble and inspiring” witnesses of
“Holocaust” a figure such as Elie Wiesel, known as the
“CEO of the Holocaust Industry” must also be included.
Both Wiesel and his father “survived” Auschwitz.
When their SS guards gave them the choice of being
“liberated” by the Red Army or evacuated to Germany,
they chose the latter!
(If there were homicidal gas chambers at Auschwitz, they
escaped the notice of the Wiesels.
On this subject, see my article “The ‘Liberation’ of
Auschwitz – Fact, Myth, Lies and Legends” available at
Pf. 100 245, (D) 69442 Weinheim/B.
The home page of Auschwitz Museum is pleased to refer to
this evacuation as a “death march...”
A real death march was the expulsion of the Germans from Mähren,
described in “Schreie aus der Hölle” (Screams from
At 12:25 the presiding judge interrupts Sylvia and announces
noonday recess until 1:30; Court actually reconvenes at
The same members are present except that Grossmann is
represented by his assistant.
There are still one bailiff and four uniformed police in the
Mack reappears around 2:30; he is now the only
The number of visitors has diminished by about a third.
The longer the proceedings drag on, the thinner the ranks of
Judge Rinio allows Sylvia to continue addressing the Court
and describe how official “Holocaust” historiography
depicts that “unique event.”
She introduces the various theories and quotes, including
one of the principal “Holopopes,” the recently deceased
US Jew Raul Hilberg, who was originally Viennese.
In his later work, which he frequently revised in order to
accomodate Revisionist research, Hilberg had to admit that
there was no German plan for the extermination of Jews.
His version of the “final solution” consisted of a kind
of homicidal telepathy, an unspoken intellectual and
political conspiracy of perpetrators.
Another important witness to the necessity of investigating
"Holocaust" is Martin Broszat, the head of the
Munich Institute for Contemporary History, who in 1960 wrote
a letter to the magazine Die
confirming that no gassings took place within
the German Reich.
Sylvia observes that there can be no “Holocaust” trial
on German soil in which the name of Prof. Robert Faurisson
is also mentioned, of course.
She refers specifically to his response to Jean-Claude
Pressac’s work as commissioned by the Klarsfeld
was the author of Auschwitz – TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF
THE GAS CHAMBERS, New York, 1989 and LES CREMATORIES D´AUSCHWITZ,
Prof. Faurisson’s review
of Pressac's work resulted in his being indicted.)
At 2:47 the judge interrupts Sylvia for the first time,
telling her to “stick to the subject.”
She does not allow herself to be distracted, however, and
continues with her presentation.
After two more minutes the judge again interrupts, tells her
to avoid digressions and limit her remarks to
Sylvia denies that her presentation is a digression and
insists that everything she says is pertinent to the subject
She points out that in her first trial, Judge Meinerzhagen
forbade her to discuss “Holocaust.”
Shortly before 3:00 pm Sylvia requests another recess, which
Judge Rinio grants.
A bailiff immediately takes her to the court jail, as at
Proceedings continue at 3:25.
Mack is the only reporter still present.
Even the staschu agents have left!
Only one bailiff and three uniformed police remain, two of
Taking up where she had left off, Sylvia points out that the
official “Holocaust” tale is fantastic, simply
Unless one’s name happens to be Fritjof Meyer, questioning
and scientific investigation of the subject inevitably
result in incarceration.
She describes Horst Mahler’s Landshut trial over remarks
he made in the interview with Michael Friedmann of the
Jewish Central Committee.
[Friedmann, who is
notorious for his dealings in cocaine and white slavery, had
requested the interview, which was published in Vanity Fair.
After inviting Mahler to a
candid exchange of views, Friedmann filed the complaint
which resulted in Mahler’s indictment]
Sylvia points out that a district attorney was the first to
file evidentiary motions regarding “Holocaust,” unique
in such trials in Germany.
That case had to do with the testimony of former Auschwitz
commandant Rudolf Höss before the International Military
Tribunal in Nuremberg.
However, his confessions could not be used in a court of law
since they had been obtained under torture.
Since that time the official position has been that it is
not permissible to investigate whether mass murder possible
in the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz: “it was
technically possible because it happened.”
This ruling is the logic that “Holocaust” courts have
continued to use in dealing with the incomprehensibility of
the official “Holocaust” tale since their response to
Prof. Faurisson’s famous letter to Le Monde newspaper in
Sylvia points out that “whoever is determined to believe
in such a thing (homicidal gas chambers) may be able to
force it down, but he who arrives at a different conclusion
goes straight to jail!
“Denying Holocaust” is treated as blasphemy in Germany
– yet every enlightened person must doubt allegations for
which there is no empirical evidence!
Today we criticize the medieval Catholic Inquisition, and
for good reason; yet today’s judicial procedure is in
principle the same, since “Holocaust” has become the new
Here of course we must inevitably refer to the Bishop
Once the principle of disallowing empirical evidence is
established, the punishment for "denying
Holocaust" grows ever more severe.
Nearing her conclusion, but taking too much time (about 25
minutes), Sylvia is showing signs of exhaustion as she
describes the endless fabrications and falsifications of the
She begins with the photograph, a proven fraud, that
Friedman laid before Mahler in the abovementioned interview.
Then she presents a photo purporting to show Wehrmacht
soldiers shooting Jews, published in Spiegel in July 2008
This falsification also appears in a review of the book Les
(Paris, 2006) written by the American
Jew Jonathan Littell, now a French citizen.
The photo is another fraudulent fabrication, as Udo Walendy
demonstrated decades ago.
Even after such frauds are exposed, the “Holocaust
Industry” has the chutzpah
to continue presenting them as proof of their false
Visibly exhausted, Sylvia now apparently becomes
For another 20 minutes she rambles disjointedly, forgetting
to show the faked photo to the Court and losing her
reference to Walendy’s research that had proven the photo
was is a fake.
Finally Judge Rinio puts and end to her detailed but
irrelevant narration, not without justification, and
concludes today’s proceedings.
At 4:37 he ends today’s proceedings and announces a
continuation on Tuesday, 24 March at 9 am.
All in all, this Court has been rather accommodating during
the first day’s proceedings.
It cannot be compared with the courts of “Judge Nein”
Meinerzhagen and Judge Glenz.
Whoever uses this article in whole or in part should list
and clearly identify any changes or additional remarks and
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 19. März 200