A New Round of Stolz Trials

Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated from the German by J M Damon, who regrets he was unable to translate it sooner.
The translation is available on request as an MS Word document.
Background 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.

A 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 Morgen (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 four females.
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 desperadoes.
As the proceedings open there are about 35 visitors plus four “staschu” (Staatsschutz) agents, the updated “stasi” (Staatssicherheit), the political police of DDR days.
Among them is the  notorious individual known as “the Shrew.”
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 present.

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 its effects.
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 Strafkammer (Sixth Superior Criminal Court) enter at 9:08.
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 little Sylvia!
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 order.
Among the mainstream reporters we recognize “The Gorilla” from BILD, familiar from last year’s trial, as well as “Mack the Hack” of Mannheimer Morgen along with a lesser scribbler from Die Rheinpfalz in Ludwigshafen.
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 numerous.
Now there is only one bailiff and three armed policemen.
The entire gang of “staschu” agents is still present, however.
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 1949.
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 patriotic opinions.
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 her client.
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 knowing better.
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 District Court.
Then Sylvia quotes at length Prof. Ernst Nolte, who insisted: “In the realm of science, everything must be questioned!”
She addresses the question of whether historical revisionists are pursuing authentic arguments or mere agitational lies.
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 circles.
(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 legal system.

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 Hell) <www.vho.org/VffG/2005/1/Eibicht8-11.html>)

At 12:25 the presiding judge interrupts Sylvia and announces noonday recess until 1:30; Court actually reconvenes at 14:45,
The same members are present except that Grossmann is represented by his assistant.
There are still one bailiff and four uniformed police in the courtroom.
Mack reappears around 2:30; he is now the only "Establishment" reporter.
The number of visitors has diminished by about a third.
The longer the proceedings drag on, the thinner the ranks of visitors.
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 Zeit 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 Foundation.
 (Jean-Claude Pressac was the author of Auschwitz – TECHNIQUE AND OPERATION OF THE GAS CHAMBERS, New York, 1989 and LES CREMATORIES D´AUSCHWITZ, Paris, 1993.
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 “Holocaust.”
Sylvia denies that her presentation is a digression and insists that everything she says is pertinent to the subject of "Holocaust".
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 every recess.
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 them women.

Taking up where she had left off, Sylvia points out that the official “Holocaust” tale is fantastic, simply incredible.
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. <www.vanityfair.de/articles/gesellschaft/politik/horstmahler/2007/09/11/09724>
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 1979.
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 state religion.
Here of course we must inevitably refer to the Bishop Williamson affair.
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 “Holocaust Industry.”
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 page 151.
This falsification also appears in a review of the book Les bienveillants (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 allegations.
Visibly exhausted, Sylvia now apparently becomes disoriented.
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 its source
and clearly identify any changes or additional remarks and commentary.

Günter Deckert
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 19. März 200



©-free 2009 Adelaide Institute