The Latest Round of Stolz Trials
Second Day, 24 March 2009
Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated from the German by J M Damon, who regrets that he was unable to translate it sooner.
This translation including the original German 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 courageous defense of patriotic dissidents, was sentenced to 42 months imprisonment by Mannheim District Court and led from the courtroom in chains.
For Günter Deckert’s on-the-spot account of that event, visit <www.loveforlife.com.au/node/3372>
The reader should realize that there is more at stake in these “Holocaust” trials than the fate of individual Revisionists.
The whole Enlightenment concept that judicial truth should be determined by 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 greatly indebted to Günter Deckert for his detailed and sympathetic coverage of these latter day witch trials.
He too has endured long years of incarceration in the struggle for human rights in Germany.
His trials accounts are the only alternative to the slavish accounts in the “Establishment” media!
24 March 2009
The day begins with the usual “security” games: seven uniformed police officers posted at the courtroom door.
Today they act bored and polite.
Even the most dimwitted cop realizes that the entire farce is nothing but a propaganda show designed to make the public think that a desperado is on trial here.
In the adjoining courtroom, where Turkish cutthroats are on trial for molesting children, there is no police presence at all, even though Muslims routinely defend their “honor” with knives and other weapons.
As proceedings begin there are around 30 visitors as well as three “staschu” agents (Staatschutz or political police) inside the courtroom, in addition to a bailiff and four other uniformed agents. All are armed.
The bailiffs are sporting a new, ultra short spring hairdo.
One of them displays a shaved and shiny scalp – are “skinhead” fashions gaining popularity?
Nobody from the Establishment media is present.
Defense Attorney Bock enters the courtroom shortly after 9:00 and Attorney Sylvia Stolz is led in at 9:07.
Then the Court enters, in the same composition as last time.
The two attending professional judges are Herr Rackwiktz, showing his usual signs of nervousness, and Frau Rath, who is acting as court historian today [German courts do not keep verbatim records of proceedings.]
Presiding Judge Rinio, who was with Drug Law Enforcement for many years, opens proceedings with a reference to Section 243 of Criminal Procedure.
Then he delivers his anticipated four-point ruling.
He says the only issue in this trial is severity of punishment, which
means that extraneous topics such as “Holo Hoax,” references to “OMF” (Organisationsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft = Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Domination, the term the authors of the present regime used so as to avoid the term “puppet government” in 1948) must be omitted.
He says that from now on, such remarks on Sylvia’s part will be treated as “abuse of court procedure” or “delaying tactics” and can constitute grounds for additional criminal charges.
He ends with a renewed threat to muzzle her.
(Experienced observers of political trials are familiar with such procedure by the “demigods in black robes” from the trials of Ernst Zündel, Germar Rudolf, Horst Mahler and from Sylvia’s first trial.)
At 9:15 Attorney Bock requests an hour’s recess in order to consider Judge Rinio’s pronouncement, which Rinio grants.
Proceedings resume at 10:32, at which time Attorney Bock tells the Court that one hour was not adequate; he needs at least two more hours.
Sylvia says the same thing.
Judge Rino does not want to grant additional time, but Attorney Bock insists on the right of the Defense to prepare an effective response.
Finally Rinio relents and announces another recess until 1:00 pm.
In the afternoon there are more visitors than in the morning, including a group of law students as well as a young man from the Rhein-Neckar division of BILD tabloid, who prefers to sit among the visitors.
[During noon recess I was able to have a casual conversation with him.
He mentioned that the BILD editors receive my reports of the trial from a third party and read them with interest, since they are unable to cover the trial as they would wish.
Perhaps my modest trial reports are having some effect outside of the patriotic movement...
After noon, Judge Rinio calls for Defense and Prosecution to state their positions.
Attorney Bock announces that he still needs at least one additional hour for his response and that he will address the Court after Sylvia has spoken.
Then the judge wants to know how much time Sylvia needs, to which she answers that she does not know precisely.
The judge repeats his question.
Attorney Bock then asks whether the time factor presents problems in this trial.
One of the lay judges interjects that the defense has had enough time.
Sylvia then asks whether the Court has already limited her speaking time.
She points out that the Court has had several days to prepare its present ruling and she cannot respond instantaneously.
Judge Rinio asks whether the Defense intends to present a concrete motion.
Attorney Bock insists that Sylvia be given adequate time to prepare her response.
At 1:16 he Court withdraws for consultation and returns at 2:06.
Judge Rinio then announces that the Court is sticking by its ruling and will not adjourn for the day as Attorney Bock has suggested.
He says that Sylvia’s conviction for “Holocaust Denial” has nothing to do with her present trial to redetermine length of incarceration.
Attorney Bock counters by pointing out that in determining punishment, the subjective element of the “criminal act” is vitally important and must be carefully considered.
He requests clarification as to what circumstances this Court considers relevant to punishment.
He points out that Judge Rinio’s threat of applying the sanction “misuse of court procedure” is a violation of prescribed trial procedure because, if he so rules, he will be cutting off consideration of the defendant’s subjective motivations for committing her “criminal act” of defending her client Ernst Zündel.
He says that for this reason, the Court is obligated to take cognizance of the “politically incorrect” motivations behind her “criminal act.”
He points out that Sylvia’s conduct of the defense in the Zündel trial has never been taken into consideration and that the Court’s threat to muzzle her is intimidation of the defendant.
He says that consideration of the circumstances surrounding Sylvia’s conduct in the Zündel trial are indispensable to determining the subjective motivation behind her actions, therefore the threat of taking away her right to speak is out of place here.
He repeats that the Judge’s instruction to speed up the trial must not be used to forbid the defendant from speaking.
District Attorney Grossmann, who does not have his bodyguard with him today, does not comment.
For the sake of appearances his predecessor, H. Klein, always traveled with several bodyguards.
He claimed that his life was under constant threat, although there were never any incidents.
[According to several visitors Grossmann is Jewish, which would explain much of his conduct.
In my first trial before Mannheim District Court (the Leuchter-Deckert Trial) in 1991, Presiding Judge Nussbruch declared at the beginning that he is Jewish and a member of the SPD.
The result of that trial was one year’s incarceration plus three years probation and a fine of 10,000 DM.
However, there was no trace of the personal animosity evinced by “Judge Nein” Meinerzhagen as well as Judge Glenz, not to mention District Attorney Grossmann.]
At 2:15 Judge Rinio allows Sylvia to speak again.
She begins by upbraiding the Court’s delays and constant interruptions of her presentation.
She observes that the Court itself is unable to determine the amount of time required for its considerations.
She assures the Court that she will follow her oral presentation of position with a written one.
This is a swipe at the Glenz court, in which she was required to present all her responses in writing only.
[In the 26 August 2008 edition of DIE REHINPFALZ I read that the Glenz Court sentenced an “exotic marauder,” a 33-year-old Algerian, to 2 years probation for aggravated robbery -- a violent crime punishable by up to 15 years in prison!
This same Glenz gang sentenced Sylvia to 42 months in prison and disbarment her for defending “Holo Deniers!”
Sylvia criticizes the alienating effect of Judge Rinio’s directive on her presentation.
She insists that her statement concerning the WARUM (why?) of the matter was not a misuse of court procedure.
Rather, it was of critical importance for determining the subjective aspect of her case that determines the severity of punishment.
She says that her intent as well as the prescribed court procedure must not be factored out.
She observes that persons accused of doubting “Holocaust,” for which there is no empirical evidence, are treated as though their guilt had been proven from the very beginning.
She points out that her “Holocaust” trial was concerned with punishing dissident political opinion, not convicting a chicken thief.
What certain knowledge would she have to have in order to know that her strategy for defending her client was criminal in nature?
The direction of her strategy was completely suppressed!
Here, District Attorney Grossmann objects: “Repetitious!”
Sylvia counters and hurls in his direction that the Court might just as well save time by hanging a sign around the neck of the accused saying “Guilty -- Keep Quiet!”
She points out that the Glenz court failed to allow legal clarification as well as consideration of the subjective portion of her crime with the pretext of irrelevancy.
And yet, intent is necessary for conviction!
She again emphasizes that muzzling is a direct assault on the defendant’s right to a legal defense: even consideration of the question of her guilt is to be prohibited.
At 2:40 pm there is another recess until 3:00 pm.
Today I have to leave early on account of an important personal appointment.
In the evening I telephone Attorney Bock and ask what occurred in my absence.
He informs me that at 5:20, Judge Rinio adjourned proceedings until Wednesday 25 March.
He says that after I left, the cat-and-mouse game played in the morning and early afternoon had continued, with frequent interruptions and more warnings that the Court was considering imposing a speaking ban on Sylvia.
So, I had missed nothing important.
Day 3 of the Present Round of Stolz Trials
On the newsstand today, there are reprints of an English newspaper of March “JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY – Jews Of All The World Unite In Action --- Boycott of German Goods --- Mass Demonstration In Many Districts --- Dramatic Action”
This is what we read on the first page of London’s conservative Daily Express - for 10 Euros one can buy a reprint of the original article in the Daily Express Bureau in London: Daily Express – The Northern & Shell Building, N° 10 Lower Thames Street, GB London EC3R 6EN --- www.express.co.uk ---- email@example.com
In addition to this, read the book by H. Stern, JÜDISCHE KRIEGSERKLÄRUNGEN AN DEUTSCHLAND – WORTLAUT, VORGESCHICHTE, FOLGEN (Jewish Declarations of War Against Germany – History and Consequences) Munich, 2000.
Still another: the article in DER GROßE WENDIG (encyclopedia) Band III, Tübingen 2008 (I would be glad to procure these for you)
Only he who is informed is entitled to join the discussion!
The day begins with the usual security games except that there are two dozen uniformed police “protecting the peace” in front of the courthouse, in addition to the bailiffs.
A third of the police are females.
Is this all the police have to do??
Inside the courtroom there are 15 visitors and 5 more armed police agents in uniform, but no “staschu” agents until 9:44, when “staschu Mohr” walks in.
Attorney Bock arrives at 9:00 am.
Nobody from the Establishment media here today...
District Attorney “Holo Grossmann” is at his usual place.
Proceedings finally get under way at 9:41.
The delay and extra police presence makes clear that the Court has something up its sleeve, striking another blow for Germany’s “liberation.”
At 9:40 a guard beings Sylvia up from the catacombs and the Court enters in its usual pomp and ceremony.
Presiding Judge Rinio waits until everyone is on his feet before delivering his anticipated ruling.
He says Sylvia has been talking too much about extraneous matters and therefore the Court has decided to restrict her time.
Attorney Bock is prepared for this since it is the usual ruling in “Holo” trials.
He announces that Sylvia is prepared to dispense with her presentation and limit herself to answering whatever questions the Court deems appropriate.
Then she is allowed to state her position regarding today’s ruling.
She briefly summarizes the arguments she has not been allowed to present, carefully avoiding the imposed limit of one hour.
Then she submits Attorney Bock’s suggestion as a motion, thus “returning the ball” to the Court.
The Court can now ask her questions that seem significant in determining the length of her prison sentence.
At 9:55 the Court again retires to confer.
Sylvia is led back down to the catacombs for a ten-minute recess and brought up again at 10:07.
Judge Rinio announces that the Court will accept Sylvia’s motion, as suggested by Attorney Bock.
He then asks questions about her life history: “You have been in prison since 14 January 2008 – how do you spend your time?
She replies that she reads, meditates and conducts correspondence.
He asks what she intends to do after her sentence is completed.
She replies that after her release from prison, and until termination of her disbarment from practicing law, she intends to work as a Heilpraktikerin (practitioner of alternative medicine).
This is her secondary profession and she has completed examinations for her license.
Then the judge wants to know how she came to choose this occupation, which is very different from that of attorney at law.
Sylvia replies that she has always been interested in health and medicine as well as law and ethics.
She says that although she has little practical experience, she is confident she will be able to succeed in her secondary occupation.
He asks if she will be able to earn enough to support herself and she says that she has no way of knowing.
He asks if she has a third occupation on which she can fall back and she answers in the negative.
He asks if she owns property or has accumulated savings and she answers that she has no savings or reserves of any kind; she has spent everything for her legal defense.
He says that he has no further questions and the lay judges say they have no questions.
Then the judge turns to Prosecutor Grossmann, who has a number of questions.
He asks Sylvia how long she has been practicing law, and then asks why and for how long she has been defending “Holocaust Deniers.”
Sylvia expresses amazement that the prosecutor would ask such a question.
[This is very significant because, under German law, if a member of the Court asks a question, the defendant must be allowed to answer it!]
She asks the court: Is it possible for me to answer this question without being charged with additional crimes?
Judge Rinio’s assessor, who immediately notices Grossmann’s blunder concerning the WARUM (“why”) question, interrupts and tries to deflect the question from “why” to “when.”
Grossmann, realizing his blunder, announces that he is not interested in repetitions.
Without looking at him, Sylvia throws in his direction: “Well, what did I just say?”
Grossmann remains silent.
Sylvia takes up the WARUM ball -- a real forward pass -- and calmly describes the progression by which she gradually arrived at her present opinions -- through her own experiences and discussions with experts.
She explains that she is a vegetarian she comes from the background of animal protection.
She says that she has always read a great deal, and this included the book Grundfragen zur Zeitgeschichte – Ein Handbuch über strittige Fragen des 20. Jahrhunderts (Basic Questions of Contemporary History: A Handbook of Controversial Questions of the 20th Century) by Ernst Gauss (Germar Rudolf), which is proscribed in Germany.
She also read The Auschwitz Myth by Judge Wilhelm Stäglitz <www.codoh.info/trials/tristagintro.htmland> and Günter Deckert’s Der Fall Günter Deckert (The Case of Günter Deckert.)
[In Germany, proscribed books are completely removed from circulation and are burned wherever they are found.
However, mature persons are allowed to possess proscribed books that can be legally bought in foreign countries, such as those mentioned above.
A somewhat less drastic type of censorship is “Indexing.”
Indexed books may not be advertised or sold to minors.]
The professional judges busily whisper among themselves for some time.
The court historian, acting even moor nervous than usual, says aloud that they should be dealing with the WANN-Frage (the question of “when”) but not the WARUM question.
He is clearly attempting to iron out Grossmann’s blunder, even blurting out that the WARUM question should never have been asked!
Sylvia calmly continues her narration, saying that, through her reading, she became convinced that orthodox “Holocaust” historiography cannot possibly be true.
It contains too many contradictions and inconsistencies.
Then she describes her further progress toward Revisionism, emphasizing that the American TV melodrama “Holocaust” made a strong impression on her when she was young.
At that time, National Socialism had no appeal for her – it was not her “thing.”
She says that, like many of her generation, she believed in “Holocaust” when she was young.
Then she was called a “Nazi” on account of her actions on behalf of animal rights.
This puzzled her and motivated her to learn more about National Socialism and to seek parallels.
At first she equated “Holocaust” with tormenting animals.
Regarding victims (Jews and animals), however, she came to the conclusion that animals are unique and cannot be compared to Jews.
She says that, as time went by, she came closer and closer to the central theme of “Holocaust” and her doubts grew greater and greater.
In the course of the Zündel trial she attempted to clarify these doubts openly through the Court, in the interests of her client.
It became clear that the German courts inevitably follow the course of appeasing official “Holocaust” historiography while ignoring the empirical arguments of the Revisionists.
She realized that the courts today are behaving as they did in the Middle Ages, before the Enlightenment taught us that the courts should be independent of government and truth should be determined by empirical evidence rather than authoritarian decree.
Today however the courts have reverted to medieval practices, and “free intellectual dispute” envisioned by the Enlightenment judicial system is not conducted by expert scientists and historians.
She reiterates that instead of determining scientific facts, the courts again conduct witch trials, just as they did during the Middle Ages.
Sylvia explains that her doubts continued to increase through her defense of “Holo” Doubters, during trial preparations and related reading of Revisionist literature.
At 11:00 am Judge Rinio calls a recess for 15 minutes.
Then he announces that, in the opinion of the Court, the question of WARUM (determination of the subjective motivations behind Sylvia’s crimes) has now been adequately answered.
In response to Sylvia’s inquiry he explains that this is the preliminary to another ruling.
Sylvia of course insists on a decision by the whole Court.
The Court retires for five minutes for consultation and continues at 11:33.
Judge Rinio then announces that the Court upholds his ruling: Sylvia’s permission to address the Court will be limited to one additional hour.
If she disregards his directive her permission to speak will be taken away completely.
He goes on to say that, on the other hand, he might grant her permission to speak longer provided she “sticks to the subject.”
The judge says he is basing his ruling on Sylvia’s conduct in the present trial, which he summarizes as “misusing court procedure and unneccessarily delaying the trial.”
Through persistent questioning, Attorney Bock establishes that in the opinion of the Defense, the Defendant has not adequately answered the District Attorney’s WARUM question.
She believes that the Court cannot so easily determine the answer to the question that the Court itself has asked.
He emphasizes that it is the duty of the Court to enlighten, explain and to create certainty on its own part.
He asks whether the Court has familarized itself with the contents of the above-mentioned books in order to be in a position to properly judge the conduct of the accused.
He says that, in case the Court has not so familiarized itself, he will submit a corresponding motion.
Judge Rinio responds that the Court has not considered the matter.
Bock insists that the Court revise its ruling so that that
Sylvia may respond to the District Attorney’s WARUM question.
He points out that she was interrupted by the recess and has not completed answering the District Attorney’s question.
Judge Rinio responds with another recess for consultation.
Then the Court reconvenes to approve Rinio’s ruling before recessing for lunch until 2:00 pm.
About 15 persons are present when proceedings resume at 14:08.
A blonde in her mid 30s, sitting in the section reserved for media, has a lengthy conversation with Grossmann.
She is probably responsible for the pro government article in the Mannheim Morgen newspaper.
Sylvia brought up from the catacombs, requests that the Court recess for the day.
She needs adequate time to prepare two responses: one concerning the question Grossmann asked, for which she was not allowed time for a response; and the other regarding the limitations imposed on the time she is allowed to address the Court.
The assessor says that she has had an hour and a half in which to respond.
Sylvia insists on her motion, to which Grossmann objects.
Bock reminds the Court of its obligation to read and consider the above mentioned books, which influenced Sylvia’s intellectual development and convinced her of the veracity of Revisionist arguments.
The Court will be unable to evaluate her motivation unless they familiarize themselves with these influences.
At 2:14 Judge Rinio announces a twenty-minute recess for Court consultation.
The Court returns at 2:35 and Rinio announces that it does not intend to take the two recommended books into consideration.
He gives no reason for this.
Then he announces adjournment until Wednesday, 1 April.
(This is not an April Fool joke!)
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 26 März 2009
REQUEST FOR SUPPORT: Covering these three trial days has taken three days of my time, from 8 am until 4 pm.
My incidental costs include gasoline, parking and meals that average around 20 Euros per day.
All in all, each day’s report takes about ten hours.
If anyone would care to support my efforts with a donation, kindly deposit in my account: G. Deckert – Postbank KA, Kto. 134345754, BLZ 660 100 75.
In conjunction with friends and supporters, I am sending Sylvia an Easter package.
We are also sending one to Horst Mahler.
Prisoners are allowed three packages per year: for Easter, Christmas and their birthday.
These packets require a special stamp that the prisoner must provide to the sender.
I maintain contact Sylvia’s and Horst’s attorneys, who point out that it is not a good idea to support them be sending money to them in prison.
This is because any cash in excess of a specified amount is confiscated.
Money from the prison account cannot be used to pay court costs.
If anyone wants to assist Sylvia or Horst financially they should contact them or me beforehand.
©-free 2009 Adelaide Institute