Sylvia Stolz: Soviel zur Meinungsfreiheit In Deutschland: Zahllose Verurteilungen wegen Meinungsäußerung

Sylvia Stolz: So Much for Freedom of Opinion in Germany: Countless Convictions for Expressing Opinions

 

Following is a translation of the complete article by "Sylvia Lionheart"on which her speech before Switzerland's Anti-Zensur Koalition is based.

That speech (with English captions), which continues to circulate

widely on Internet sites, is posted at

< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OW-KzFgg-hI&feature=player_embedded>

The complete original Stolz article is posted on several sites including

<altermedia-deutschland.info/pdf/Soviel-zur-Meinungsfreiheit.pdf>

 

Translated by J M Damon

Available on request as MS Word Document

 

****************

 

In her profession of attorney at law, Sylvia Stolz defended several clients (including Ernst Zündel) who were charged with "Holocaust Denial." She did this by presenting to the Court facts that were intended to raise doubts about the veracity of the official depiction of "Holocaust" and its "Manifest Obviousness." In defending her clients she demonstrated that since 1945, Germany has continuously been under veiled domination by the victors of World War II. In the Zündel case she persisted in attempting to defend her client by presenting empirical evidence that would absolve him. She did this by presenting and defending evidentiary motions despite the presiding judge's threats of penalties as well as revocation of permission to speak in court.

 

Because she persisted in efforts to defend her client with evidentiary motions, she was herself convicted of "Denying Holocaust," "Disparagement of the State," "Incitement of the Masses," "Obstruction of Punishment" and "Coercion." in January 2008 she was sentenced to three years and three months incarceration and arrested inside the courtroom. Her conviction for "Coercion," which resulted from her motion to instruct lay judges, was overturned by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Appeals Court) because no threats were involved. The Mannheim District Court also imposed a five-year disbarment against Attorney Stolz even though she had no prior convictions. On the basis of her conviction she was then disbarred from the practice of law.

 

Judge Meinerzhagen of the Mannheim court, who presided over the Zündel trial, stated the opinion that the defense strategy was characterized by "Denying Holocaust." He said that this strategy was therefore criminal and non factual and could not be used by the Defense. He called Attorney Stolz's pleadings "disruptive" and let it be known that he would allow no evidence that cast doubt on the official version of "Holocaust." He said that in no case would he allow "criminal" statements in proceedings that were open to the public and that he would disallow any defense that tended in a "criminal direction." (Ruling of 7 November 2005, Mannheim District Court, 6 KLs 503 Js 4/96). He applied his ruling in such a way as to deny three attorneys, including Attorney Stolz, permission to present their motions and arguments orally. Instead, he imposed the burden of presenting their motions and arguments in written form only, under the provisions of Section 257a of the Criminal Code. During Attorney Stolz's attempts to present evidence in spite of Judge Meinerzhagen's ruling, which she considered unlawful, he denied her permission to argue her case and finally excluded her from the trial altogether.

 

Since the ruling of the Superior District Court in Karlsruhe concerning her exclusion had not yet taken effect (the deadline for appeal had not expired) and since in her opinion the expulsion was unlawful, she refused to leave the courtroom on the orders of Judge Meinerzhagen. He then ordered the bailiffs to remove her from the courtroom. Attorney Stolz informed the bailiffs that they would have to remove her bodily, which they did. Ten months later, in February 2007 her client Ernst Zündel was sentenced to five years incarceration for "denying" the so-called "Holocaust" by maintaining an Internet site dedicated to this subject. In reporting the Zundel trial the newspaper taz made the following observation on page 6 of its issue for 9 February 2007: "In the end, the Court denied all her motions with the laconic ruling, which shocked even the antifascist spectators, that it was irrelevant whether the Holocaust actually occurred or not: It is a crime in Germany to deny that it occurred, and that is the only thing that matters in court!"

 

In German jurisprudence there is no binding definition of "Holocaust," which is a violation of the judicial principle of determinacy. Such a definition is not mentioned a single time in Section 130 of the German Criminal Code, which provides for sentencing of "Holocaust Deniers.".

 

{Bottom of Page 1 of Original}

 

Concerning the nature of the disputed event, Section 130 Paragraph 3 of the German Criminal Code refers to Article 6 Paragraph 1 of the Völkerstrafgesetzbuch  (Code of Crimes Against International Law), in which genocide is defined as murder of a member of an ethnic or religious group with intent to annihilate the subject group wholly or in part. (See <http://www.preventgenocide.org/law/icc/statute/part-a.htm>) According to Section 130 Paragraph 3 of the German Penal Code as well as Section 6 Paragraph 1 of the Code of Crimes Against International Law, individuals could be punished for denying that under National Socialism a Jew was deliberately killed by someone (even a non German) with intent to destroy Judaism as an ethnic or religious group - even without the knowledge or volition of the government of the Reich. In Austria as in Germany, the Criminal Code fails to define "Holocaust." The Austrian Prohibition Act of 1947 provides for 5 to 10 years incarceration for anyone who "denies National Socialist genocide or other crimes against humanity."

 

Throughout the entire Stolz trial in Mannheim District Court, her arguments and evidentiary motions were disallowed on grounds that they were "abuse of the law" and irrelevant in view of the fact that they were "intended to cast doubt on Holocaust." The Mannheim sentence devotes a great deal of space to condemning Attorney Stolz's "world view." The Court disallowed nearly all the defendant's rights of defense, including the right to comment and ask questions of Meinerzhagen as a witness. The reasons given were her "misapplication of the law" for the purpose of "spreading revisionist arguments." (Sentence of Mannheim District Court, 14 January 2008, p. 43, 4 KLs 503 Js 2306/06). Her sentence, like those of other "Holocaust Deniers," includes no factual determinations concerning the criminal act of so-called "Holocaust Denial," that is, no ascertainment of a state organized mass murder of Jews during the Third Reich. It includes no determinations about the place of the alleged genocide, methods of murder, number of victims, time of alleged murders, alleged perpetrators, corpses or remains of the victims of whose murders Germans are accused. It includes no evaluations of testimonies of alleged eyewitnesses, documents or other forensic evidence, no evidence of any National Socialist intent to destroy world Judaism as required by Section 130 III of German Criminal Code as well as Section 6 of International Criminal Code; or even determinations regarding decisions, plans or directives - not even in the form of reference to other sentences. It lacks even the ascertainment that "Holocaust" is "manifestly obvious" and therefore requires no evidence! As long as the courts fail to determine locales at which mass murder occurred and as long as no empirical evidence is presented, it is impossible to legally determine that mass murder occurred. Without factual determinations in support of the alleged genocide, there can consequently be no conclusive or lawful convictions for "Holocaust Denial."

 

The sentence imposed by Mannheim Court states that it was Attorney Stolz's intent to proclaim and promote her "alleged truth" until such time as a judge would incur doubts about "Holocaust" and its "manifest obviousness." The sentence goes on to say that her questioning the "systematic annihilation of the Jews" can be attributed only to "hostile ignorance of the unequivocal body of evidence" (See page 53 of her sentence dated 14 January 2008). The so-called "Nuremberg Verdict" likewise contains no factual determinations concerning mass murder in homicidal gas chambers. Instead, it makes the following general allegations:

"In a number of concentration camps, gas chambers were constructed for the purpose of mass murder of inmates, along with ovens for the cremation of their corpses... Of these, several were used for the annihilation of Jews as part of the 'final solution' to the Jewish problem. The majority of non-Jewish inmates were used for physical labor, although their working conditions virtually guaranteed their death. Those inmates who became ill and were no longer able to work were either murdered in gas chambers or else sent to special hospitals where they received inadequate treatment and received even less adequate food than the laboring inmates, and where they were allowed to die." (Der Nürnberger Prozeß (Allied Military Tribunal) Vol. I: Verdict, Pages 189-, 263)

 

Two articles of the London Charter that were written especially for the Tribunal read as follows:

Article 19: The Tribunal shall not be bound by rules of evidence.

Article 20: The Tribunal shall not require proof of facts of common knowledge but shall take judicial notice thereof.

According to Robert H. Jackson, Chief Prosecutor for the United States, the Allied Tribunal represented a continuation of the war effort of the Allies. (Protocols of the Nuremberg Tribunal, Vol. XIX, page 449.)

 

The verdict of the so-called Frankfurt Auschwitz Trial (Frankfurt/Main District Court 4 Ks 2/63) reads: "...The Court lacked almost all possibility of gaining insight or knowledge of the facts that would be present in a normal murder trial, in order to create an accurate picture of events at the time of the murders. There were no bodies of victims, no results of autopsies, no expert opinions about cause and time of death, no evidence concerning perpetrators, weapons, etc. It was seldom possible to even question eyewitnesses." (Frankfurt Trial Blatt (Folio) 595 a-54, page 434)

 

{Bottom of Page 2 of Original}

 

Page 434 of the Verdict reads: "...In its depiction of the actions of the defendants, the Court was limited almost exclusively to eyewitness accounts... There were hardly any witnesses who observed events at Auschwitz as neutral observers." (Page 432)

 

In 1979, 34 French historians representing official "Holocaust" historiography released the following explanation in response to technical arguments presented by Prof. Robert Faurisson regarding "Holocaust Gas Chambers:" Their explanation states: "One is not permitted to ask whether such genocide was technically possible. It was possible because it happened. This is the obligatory starting point of any historical investigation of the subject. We must keep this truth in remembrance: There is no debate concerning the existence of homicidal gas chambers and there can be no such debate."

 

Many defendants who attempted to defend themselves in court by giving factual reasons why they doubt "Holocaust" have been charged anew and convicted of "Holocaust Denial". The verdict of Munich Bar Court dated 15 September 2009 disbarring Attorney Stolz states that it is impermissible to express political opinions that are prohibited by law (File: Verdict, page 11, AZ: 1 AnwG 25/2007). In her appeal to the Bar Court, as in her criminal trial, she included the following statement made in 1960 by Dr. Martin Broszart of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich (He later became Head of the Institute): "Neither in Dachau nor Bergen-Belsen nor Buchenwald were Jews or any other prisoners gassed." (Die Zeit, 19 August 1960, page 16.) What, in the view of the courts, is now "manifestly obvious?" Is it "manifestly obvious" that homicidal gassings took place in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Or is it obvious that no such gassings took place there? Both propositions cannot be obvious. Here is the expert testimony of the distinguished historian and legal expert Prof. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of Vienna (A-1090 Wien, Rotenhausgasse 6) in his message to the District Criminal Court of Vienna dated 1 October 1991 (File No. 26 b Vr 14 184/86): "...Furthermore, several acquittals in similar trials before national and international courts have re-enforced doubts about basic questions. Mere extrapolation and updating of references to the judicial propensity for support of allegations of Jewish annihilations in alleged gas chambers in Auschwitz no longer suffice to produce convictions in courts with any sense of justice."

 

The Third Senate of the Bavarian Bar Court nevertheless disallowed evidentiary motions regarding the "manifest obviousness" of "Holocaust" with the remark that it "...had no doubts about the manifest obviousness of the Holocaust in view of the generally accessible written materials, photographs and audio materials" with which it was familiar. (Ruling dated 14 January 2011, file AGH II-27/09). The Defense motions requesting that the Senate reveal the sources on which it based its certainty were quashed on grounds of "manifest obviousness of the 'Holocaust'" as well as "National Socialist violence against the Jews" along with generic references to "newspapers, radio, television, reference works and history books." (Ruling dated 8 February 2011.)

 

When a French historian named Jacques Baynac, a representative of official "Holocaust" historiography, states that one can produce nothing but the "absence of documents, traces and other material evidence" (Le Nouveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Schweiz, 2 Sep. 1996 page16, and 3 Sep. 1996 page14) in support of the existence of "Nazi gas chambers" this is clear evidence that there is a judicial need for explication of the "manifest obviousness of Holocaust." The comments of the eminent professor of history Ernst Nolte also illustrate the overwhelming need for discussion: On page 96 of his definitive study Der kausale Nexus (Herbig, Munich, 2002) he observes "...Witness testimony relies almost exclusively on hearsay and conjecture. The reports of the few eyewitnesses contradict one another and arouse doubt regarding their credibility." (Ernst Nolte, Der kausale Nexus, Herbig, Munich, 2002, page 96.)

 

Prof. Nolte's skepticism is re-enforced by Historian Hans Mommsen in his interview by the Süddeutsche Zeitung for 25 Oct. 2010, page 16: "The 'Holocaust' did not result from any orders of the Führer." In his article "The Number of Auschwitz Victims: New Revelations from Archival Discoveries" in the periodical OSTEUROPA for May 2002 (pages 631 - 641) Spiegel editor Fritjof Meyer suggests that the alleged "genocide" took place not in Camp Auschwitz but "probably" in two farmhouses outside the camp. This provides further proof of the need for explication of the concept of "manifest obviousness."

 

{Bottom of Page 3 of Original}

 

In addition, Michel de Bouard, Professor of History and Deacon of the Faculty of the University of Caen, points out that "the records are rotten." On page 6 of Ouest-France for 3 August 1986, he points out that the files of German concentration camps "...have become saturated with an immense number of invented stories and pig-headed repetitions of demonstrable lies as regards figures, confused commixtures and exaggerated generalizations." Here is still more evidence that the "manifest obviousness of Holocaust" requires explication!

 

According to page 10 of the Verfassungsschutzbericht (Report on Protection of the Constitution) for 2010, "right-wing extremist revisionists" are attempting to "manipulate historical perception" by "de-emphasizing sources that document National Socialist atrocities."

 

According to the Federal Constitutional Court, an "obviously false interpretation of history" or "objectionable interpretation of contemporary history" does not constitute valid grounds for limiting freedom of expression. (Reference: BVerfGE  (Constitutional Court Records), 4 November 2009, 1 BvR 2150/08, Abs.-Nr. 77, 82.)  However, the Constitutional Court provides that the Federal Government "in exceptional cases" may pass special laws and rules such as Section 130 of the Penal Code (punishment of a particular opinion with proscription of defense and submission of evidence.) This is because of the "unique historical identity" of the Federal Republic as "the antithesis of National Socialism." (BVerfGE ibid., Abs.-Nr. 65, 66).  In other words: the Federal Republic of Germany may punish opinions, proscribe defense arguments and suppress empirical evidence because it is the Federal Republic. In practice this means that in the Federal Republic, the presentation of evidence is superfluous when the defendant is accused of a "unique or singular crime," that is, when it concerns "Holocaust." (Constitutional Court ruling, ibid., No. 68). This is an obvious case of arbitrary administration of justice. At present, historical revision and constitutional appeals are "obviously unfounded" (Section 349 II of German Code of Criminal Procedure) and "baseless" [ruling of the BGH  (Federal High Court) 6 October 2009 regarding Attorney Stolz, file 3 STR 375/09].

 

Walter Lippmann, leading American journalist and unofficial chief of US propaganda under President Wilson is quoted in Die Welt issue for 20 November 1982 as follows: "After the necessary occupation of the defeated enemy country and sentencing of its leadership in war crimes trials, the most vital guarantee of victory can take effect only when the defeated nation is subjected to a re-education program. Only when the war propaganda of the victors is entered into the history books of the vanquished, and is believed by succeeding generations, will re-education have succeeded.”

 

As Prof. Ernst Nolte observes in Feindliche Nähe (Herbig, Munich, pp. 74 -79): "If radical Revisionism were correct in its allegation that there was no 'Holocaust' in the sense of comprehensive and systematic attempts at annihilation conducted by the highest levels of government, then I would have to make the following declaration:

National Socialism was not a 'distorted copy of Bolshevism.' Rather, it was conducting a struggle for survival of a Germany that had been forced on the defensive worldwide." In the words of Patrick Bahners (who subsequently became the Feuilleton editor of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung), referring to the trial of the so-called "Holocaust Denier" Günter Deckert in the FAZ for 15 August 1995: "If Deckert's concept of the Holocaust were correct, then the Federal Republic would be founded on a lie. Every presidential speech, every moment of silence, every history book would be mendacious. By denying the genocide of the Jews, he is questioning the legitimacy of the Federal Republic."

As for Attorney Stolz's so-called "disparagement" of the Federal Republic, the sentence imposed on her by Mannheim District Court includes no explication of whether or to what extent the factual basis and legal arguments concerning the Federal Republic that she presented in the Zundel trial are factually or legally unfounded. There are no determinations about whether or why it is factually and judicially inappropriate to apply the international concepts of Fremdherrschaft (foreign rule) and Marionettenregierung (puppet regime) to the Federal Republic. There is no determination at all as to whether or why Prof. Carlo Schmid's speech of 8 August 1948 before the Parliamentary Council is irrelevant. This speech, given on the occasion of the adoption of our present Basic Law, defines the government of Germany after its reorganization by the victors of the War as an "Organisationsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft" (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.)

[Footnote 1: Der Parlamentarische Rat (Parliamentary Council) 1948-1949, Documents and Protocols, Volume 9, published by the German Federal Parliament and Bundesarchiv, Harald Boldt,  Oldenbourg Publishers, Munich, 1996, pages 20-.]

 

{Bottom of Page 4 of Original}

 

Prof. Schmid clearly demonstrates that because sovereignty is missing in our "Modality of Foreign Rule" we cannot have a valid constitution; therefore the system created by this Basic Law is not is a sovereign state. The Court provides no explications as to whether or to what extent anything has changed in this regard since 1948.

 

As Friedrich Berber points out in his authoritative Lehrbuch des Völkerrechts (Textbook of International Law): "The dissolution of the government of the enemy state or the installation of a new government for the occupied territory (commonly called "Puppet Government" or "Quisling Government) oversteps the authority of the occupying power. Such a government cannot be considered a de facto government, but rather an organ of the occupying power; and any measures of such a government that go further than the rights of an occupier are unlawful." (See Textbook of International Law Volume II, Rules of War, 2nd edition, C.H. Beck Publisher, Munich, 1969, pages 132 -)

 

Spiegel writer Götz Aly reported that 95% of all Germans "experienced National Socialism not as a system of repression and terror, but rather a regime of social well- being, a kind of benign dictatorship." (Der Spiegel No. 10/2005, page 56.)

Spiegel reported that even in 1948, around 57% of Germans believed that National Socialism was a good idea (Issue No. 20/2003, page 47.) Since the end of World War II, political parties of which the victors disapprove have been prohibited, so we cannot speak of free elections in the Federal Republic of Germany, Austria or the former German Democratic Republic. In addition all political parties and organizations, along with government agencies including the courts and media editorial staffs, have been staffed according to the guidelines of the victors of World War II. This monitoring by the victors rules out any assumption of German sovereignty. It has neither been announced (nor is it evident) that anything has changed in our judiciary.

From time to time the media announce that Germany has reestablished sovereignty, especially through the so-called "Two Plus Four Agreement" regarding reunification. However, the very wording of the agreements shows that no such sovereignty exists. It is true that the agreements signed on 12 September 1990 proclaim "unrestricted sovereignty." The separate "Agreement" dated 27 September 1990, however, stipulates that key provisions of the so-called "Transition Agreement" of 26 May 1952 remain in force. Thus the court rulings concerning criminality, including so-called "Nuremberg Trials" that were conducted (or might be conducted in future) by the victors, continue to have the force of law and must be enforced by German courts and agencies. [FOOTNOTE 2: Article 7 Paragraph 1 of the Vertrag zur Regelung aus Krieg und Besatzung entstandener Fragen," Überleitungsvertrag, Bundesgesetzblatt Teil II, Internationale Verträge, 1955, Nr. 8, Bonn, 31. March 1955, page 413].

In Germany these treaties and agreements have the status of law in every respect and must be treated by the German courts and agencies accordingly. Again, such coercion is not reconcilable with national sovereignty!

 

The enforcement of foreign rules, whether open or veiled, is a violation of International Law according to Article 43 of the Hague Rules for Land Warfare, which prohibits intervention in the laws that are in force in the occupied country. Measures prescribed by foreign rule are not legally binding for the occupied nation. This applies to politically motivated regulations and court convictions as well as agreements with the United Nations or European Union. An agreement between a victorious power and a regime that it has installed represents a contract with itself and is not legally binding. Who possessed the legitimate right to annul the laws of the Reich? The German Reich continues to exist. It still possesses international legitimacy, but is at present powerless to act. This has been repeatedly stated by the Federal Constitutional Court (Reference: 2, 266; 277; 3, 288, 319-; 5, 85, 126; 6, 309; 336, 363):

"1) German Basic Law, and not just an article of International law or theoretical construct of constitutional law, assumes that the Reich survived the military collapse of 1945. It never ceased to exist, either with military capitulation or the exercise of foreign power by the Allied occupation forces. This is clear from the Preamble as well as Articles 16, 23, 116 and 146 of Basic Law...

2) The Reich continues to exist (Federal Constitutional Court 2, 266, 277; 3, 288, 319-); 5, 85,126; 6, 309, 336, 363). As before, it still possesses its legal capacity. Institutionally it lacks functioning organs of state and is therefore unable to act." (Federal Constitutional Court 36, 1, pages 15-)

 

It is an unfounded and untenable allegation that the Federal Republic and the German Reich are identical or even partially identical, as the Constitutional Court has claimed. Just as in ancient times the Christian Church built its edifices on the ruins of demolished "heathen" cult sites, new construction did not create identity. In the records of the discussions between U.S. President Roosevelt and Marshall Stalin concerning the Teheran Conference in 1943 we find the following entry:

"The President said that in his view, it is very important that the concept of the Reich not be allowed to remain in the consciousness of the German nation, and that this word should be removed from the German language."

 [FOOTNOTE 3: In a memorandum to the U.S. Secretary of State dated 6 April 1945, Roosevelt again emphasized his intention to eliminate the word "Reich" from the German vocabulary. Source: Roosevelt Papers / available in the FDR Library, <roosevelt.library@nara.gov>, Tel. 845 229-8114, Fax -0872]

 

{Bottom of Page 5 of Origina|}

 

In disbarment proceedings, the Bavarian Attorney's Court (File: Bay AGH II – 27/09) disallowed Attorney Stolz's evidentiary motions, which were intended to show that the designation of German Federal Republic as rule by foreign powers is an arguable legal concept. The Attorney's Court dismissed it on the grounds that "the sovereignty of Germany is manifestly obvious." (Ruling of 14 January 2011.) Then the Court dismissed Attorney Stolz's motion for an explication of "Manifest Obviousness of the Sovereignty of Germany" on grounds that the principle of requirement of elucidation does not allow it "to conduct discussions concerning the legality of the Constitution." (Ruling 18 February 2011).

 

The distinguished journalist Peter Scholl-Latour said the following in an interview with tv Horen und Sehen (Nr. 52, 31 Dec 2-05 – 6 January 2006): "...That is a lesson from 2005, as the case of El Masri and the secret CIA flights show... they go far beyond normal alliance relationships. We are still vassals - Germany is not a sovereign country." Wolfgang Schäuble, Former Interior Minister of the Federal Republic, expressed the following at the European Banking Congress in Frankfurt am Main on 18 November 2011: "The critics who believe that we must have congruence among all political divisions are proceeding from the assumption of monopoly of regulation that characterizes a nation state. That was the old legal order, which still underlies  international law with its concept of sovereignty. In Europe that concept was reduced to absurdity long ago, at latest during the two world wars in the first half of the last century... in Germany we have not been fully sovereign since the 8th of May 1945." Thus while one court claims that Germany is "obviously" sovereign, politicians in the German Federal Republic and European Union have long considered the sovereignty of European nations to be ancient history. Schäuble also indirectly admits that the abolition of national sovereignty is not the result of international law.

 

Both the European Union and United Nations dismiss national interests and standpoints as "discrimination."

 

Concerning President Roosevelt's negotiations with Stalin, Wendell Willkie (Special Envoy of Roosevelt) wrote that the principal war aim of the US and USSR was the "Abolition of National (Folkish) Exclusiveness." (W.L. Willkie: „One World“, Simon & Schuster, New York. Referenced in Frankurter Allgemeine Zeitung for 14 February 1992.) On 9 November 1932, several months before Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of the German Reich, Bernard Lacache, President of the Jewish World League was quoted in the Jewish publication Le Droit de vivre as saying:" Germany is our main enemy... We intend to wage merciless war against this country."

 

On 17 June 1981 in the Heidelberger Manifesto, 15 university instructors, including Herr Oberländer, Federal Minister in Adenauer's day, addressed the public as follows:

"We observe with grave concern the infiltration of the German nation by an influx of millions of foreigners with their families. This infiltration is undermining our language, culture and folkways. Already many Germans in our own fatherland have become strangers in their own neighborhoods and places of employment... It is not possible for us to integrate huge masses of foreigners while retaining our own nation - this can only lead to the familiar ethnic catastrophes of multicultural societies. Every country has a natural right to preserve its identity and unique character, and this includes Germany." As State Secretary Dr. Otto Uhlitz, political consultant to the legendary mayor of Berlin Willy Brandt writes in his book Aspekte der Souveränität (Kiel, 1987): "This can't go on! Whoever wants to change the official form of the Federal Republic is punished for treachery, while those who work to abolish the German people and replace it with a multicultural society on German soil goes unpunished."

 

The historian Prof. Christian Meier of the University of Munich, responding to a question posed by the news magazine Der Spiegel: Spiegel Magazine: "How do you explain that the national pride of the Germans could be so completely broken?" His answer: "On account of the totality of Germany's defeat and the collective shame over Auschwitz." (Der Spiegel, No. 30/2010 26 July 2010, page 126.) According to Focus, migrants "must make Germany their own." (Issue No. 41, 8 October 2012, page 38) Chancellor Angela Merkel, speaking on "Holocaust" before the Israeli Knesset, spoke of the "special, unique relationships" between Germany and Israel and stated that

responsibility for the security of Israel is "part of my country's reason for existence." According to a petition to the Federal Republic by the Federal Parliament supported by the CDU/CSU, SPD, FDP and Green Parties, solidarity with Israel is an "indispensable part of our national mission" and solidarity with groups such as Hamas and Hisbollah is considered "inadmissible criticism" of Israel. (Mannheimer Morgen, 5 November 2008.)

 

{Bottom of Page 6 of Original}

 

US President Obama constantly reassures leading American Jews that the White House's obligation to insure Israel's "security" is "unshakable." Anyone who mentions the Jews in conjunction with plutocracy, the US East Coast, interest bondage, capitalism, the financial crisis, globalization, democratization, high masonry, the European Union, United Nations or New World Order is slandered and labeled "right wing extremist" or "anti Semite" and persecuted. The same treatment accrues to anyone who makes the factual observation that banks of issue, stock markets, "democratic" parties and the mass media are all controlled by Jews. In 2009 Attorney Horst Mahler was sentenced to over ten years in prison for "Denying Holocaust," "anti Semitic remarks" and "Incitement of the Masses." He too was immediately arrested inside the courtroom. Whoever disagrees with the abolition of nation states or national sovereignty through commingling and intermixture is designated as "racist" or "inhuman" and punished for "crimes" such as "Incitement of the Masses."

 

Attorney Sylvia Stolz's disbarment appeal was summarily rejected as being "obviously unfounded" under Section 349, Paragraph 2 of the German Criminal Code without any statement of grounds (File: AnwSt R 11/11.) The appeal on constitutional grounds was not even considered because "the attachments were not forwarded until the day after the deadline" (as alleged by the Constitutional Court.) In reality, the appeal with attachments had been placed in the mailbox of the Constitutional Court well before the deadline, as is explained in the following response directed to the Constitutional Court, filed by Attorney Stolz on 22 March 2012 (File AR 1383, 1 BVR 916/12). The response reads as follows:

 "I refer to your letter dated 14 March 2012 in which I am advised to inquire into the  legal status of my appeal. Your letter states that on account of concerns about the acceptability of my constitutional appeal, you have refrained from accepting it for judicial decision. You write that the attachments to my appeal arrived a day after the deadline and were therefore not timely submitted. You claim that my FAX dated 24 February 2012 arrived without attachments and that my writ with attachments "sent by mail" and dated 24 February 2012 did not arrive until 25 February. You point out that within a period of one month it is necessary to demonstrate to what extent the disputed decisions are based on violations of fundamental rights. There is in fact no reason to doubt the admissibility of my constitutional appeal. The Constitutional Court states the following: 'Within the specified time, the Constitutional Appeal must demonstrate in which right and/or act or omission the appellant has been harmed.' (Reference: BVerfGE 18, 85, 89; Rüdiger Zuck, Das Recht der Verfassungsbeschwerde, Beck, NJW-Schriftenreihe, 2. Auflage, München 1988, Rn 678)".

 

My Response is as follows: "In the appeal dated 24 February 2012 the disputed verdicts and rulings are specifically given in the proper locations. Even without attachments, it is clear from the text of the appeal which actions and deletions should be considered unlawful and to what extent the disputed court rulings rest on violations of fundamental rights. The fact that the appeal with attachments was also sent by post is irrelevant. As I mention in my letter of 8 March 2012, I personally placed it in the day-and-night mailbox of the Constitutional Court SCHLOßBEZIRK 3 well before midnight on the evening of 24 February 2012. This can easily be proven: The mailbox was very full. The Internet site of the Constitutional Court advised that because of construction work on the building, the place of business had temporarily been moved to the Rintheimer Querallee although the postal address continued to be Schloßbezirk 3. I looked closely at the papers bulging out of the overloaded mailbox in order to make certain that the mailbox was really in use. Before I could stuff my thick envelope into the mailbox I had to push down several letters and an advertising circular addressed to Mr. Voßkuhle. It is incomprehensible that my appeal would not have been taken inside before the 25th of February! For the sake of absolute certainty, let me point out that merely because a FAX of the same appeal was received at around 10:00 it cannot be deduced that my written appeal was not placed in the night mailbox in a timely manner. According to the log, transmission of the FAX lasted approximately one hour.

 

The FAX transmission began at around 8:30 pm, but it became apparent when loading the pages along with attachments, that the FAX machine was malfunctioning and would not be able to complete the process of transmission. The line was apparently busy. Therefore I immediately set out by automobile for Karlsruhe, where I placed the appeal with attachments in the above-mentioned mailbox at 11:40 pm. In the meantime the FAX machine had automatically resumed transmitting my appeal. This time it was successful, so that at around 10:00 pm the FAX copy of the appeal whose transmission had begun at 8:30 pm arrived at its destination.

 

The Constitutional Court states:

"The appeal must specify, within the appointed time, by which law and through which act or omission the appellant has been harmed. This does not exclude the subsequent supplementing the grounds of the appeal, factually and judicially. However this cannot open the door to introducing a new issue after the deadline has passed, in order to make it the object of the appeal. (Reference: BVerfGE 18, 85, 89; Rüdiger Zuck, Das Recht der Verfassungsbeschwerde, Beck, NJWSchriftenreihe, 2. Auflage, München 1988, Rn 678).

 

{Bottom of Page 7 of Original}

 

Even if the attachments had not been received on Friday 24 February, and not until the next day (which was factually not the case), they would still have to be accepted as subsequent addenda to the factual grounds of the appeal. This is because in the appeal itself, the disputed decisions are reiterated in detail under the heading "Wiedergabe des wesentlichen Inhalts" (Restatement of Essential Contents.) Therefore it is clear that even without attachments, the actions and omissions considered unlawful, as well as the extent to which the disputed court court decisions were based on violation of constitutional laws or the equivalent of such violations, would still have to be accepted .

I added no new issues or contents as objects of my appeal. Moreover, a constitutional appeal in and of itself does not become inadmissible because of a tardy submission of a new item not mentioned in the complaint, and tardy submission would not cause previously submitted items of appeal to become inadmissible.

 

The attachments, even if they had not been submitted until 25 February, could still have been submitted as admissible amendments to the appeal grounds, at the beginning of the first workday after the deadline, along with the appeal. There is no factual or judicial justification for considering the appeal inadmissible or evading a decision on the validity of its grounds.

 

The Constitutional Court did not even consider the merits of the case. In its ruling of 5 July 2012 it states simply: "This constitutional appeal is not accepted for adjudication because the complete disputed court rulings as well as the essential attachments required for a constitutional ruling, were received after expiration of the 30 day deadline.  (See BVerfGE (Constitutional Court Ruling) 81, 208 <214>). Therefore, in view of lack of an adequate exception to the deadline, there is no reason for reconsideration. (See Section 93 Paragraph 1 Item 1 i.V.m. § 92, § 23 Abs. 1 Satz 1 BVerfGG). This decision is incontestable. (See 1 BvR 916/12)."

 

 

All grounds relating to the facts of the case are missing from the Court's ruling. The facts of the case as presented in my report of 22 March 2012 demonstrated in numerous points that the appeal was well within the constraints of the deadline. The Constitutional Court did not even consider the contents. It did not explain whether or to what extent new points can be made the subject of constitutional appeal after expiration of the deadline (Refer to BVerfGE 81, 208, 214). From this absence of an explanation we conclude that it did not even investigate the matter.

 

The following is extracted from Attorney Stolz's pleading before the Bavarian Attorney's Court:

"Since during the entire trial the Attorney's Court submitted no presentation of fact whatsoever to counter my pleading, I must proceed from the assumption that I, faced with the violence used against me, was expected to abandon the concepts and strategies that I have developed during many years of legal practice in this field. The conceptual quintessence of the Federal Republic judiciary is clearly that the Nazis (that is, Germans) are criminals because they committed something called "Holocaust" and any one who presents evidence or argues that this is not true must be barred because that person is a criminal. Whoever does not follow this doctrine is "uneducable" and "unregenerate" and "hostile to the rule of law" and must be punished. Such a method of procedure obviously deals a fatal blow to freedom of advocacy. It is in fact the deathblow to justice. Such a tragedy is possible only because the German judiciary agree to participate in committing terror against the freedom of speech and opinion. It is possible only because the majority of jurists yield to this terror of opinion.

 

To every consistent and just-minded person it is obvious that the sentences imposed on so-called "Holocaust Deniers" are based on arbitrary decisions. They are imposed by unlawful means and they cannot possibly be judicially valid. A judge in the old German Democratic Republic was convicted of perversion of justice for the following reason:

"We are not dealing here with adjudication directed towards realization of justice, but rather arbitrary repression and deliberate exclusion of a political rival... The punishment no longer corresponds to factual considerations, it is directed solely at intimidating dissidents and thereby insuring the continuing dominance of the present rulers."

The object of this verdict was the expression of an opinion that was opposed by the rulers and therefore penalized. (From a press release of the Federal German Constitutional Court, File 41/98 dated 22 April 1998, BVerfG 2 BvR 2560/95).

 

****************

 

This article includes excerpts from my appeal in the Bavarian Bar Trial dated 20 June 2011 (File Bay AGH II – 27/09, BGH AnwSt R 11/11), the Constitutional Appeal dated 24 February 2012 (File 1 BvR 916/12), and the ruling on court costs of 4 October (File: 1 AnwG 25/07- X EV 77/06)

 

Sylvia Stolz, Attorney, who was disbarred from the judiciary of the Federal Republic of Germany for "Holocaust Denial." 

Address: Pfarrer-Grabmeier-Allee 10, 85560 Ebersberg, Tel. 08092-24418, Email <sylviastolz@aol.com>

 

****************

Margin Notations at Botton of Page 2:

Why is "Holocaust" manifestly obvious when it is necessary to threaten critics?

Answer: Because it  has to be!

 

Margin Notations at Bottom of Page 3:

Of course you are allowed to express your opinion!

But how can a citizen express an opinion if he or she is not allowed to speak or write it?

 

Margin Notations at Bottom of Page 4:

Question: What is a "right-wing extremist"?

Answer: Someone who is too far to the right to hope for justice!

 

Margin notations at Bottom of Page 5:

Question: With which freedoms can sophisticated democrats do without?

Answer: With those of others!

 

Margin Notations at Bottom of Page 6:

Q: Why is the Federal Republic called a democracy when the people are not allowed to speak?

A: So it won't be a dictatorship!

 

Margin Notations at Bottom of Page 7:

How do we know that the democrats are the good guys?

Because yjr others are always responsible when things go wrong!

 

****************

The translator is a "Germanophilic Germanist" who translates the works of German

dissidents for the benefit of fellow Germanophiles who do not read German.

 

 

 

 

©-free 2013 Adelaide Institute