>>Translated by James Damon<<

__________________________________________

General Prosecutor’s Office
Munich
80097 Munich
Munich, 20 June 2007
Telephone (089)5597-4513
Telefax: (089) 5597-4125
Case Number: X EV 77/2006
(always refer to this number)


Accusations in the Attorney-Court Case Against
Sylvia Stolz, born 6 August 1963 in Munich, Attorney at Law


The Inquiries of the General Office of the Prosecutor in Munich have established the following:
I

1. On the second day of proceedings in the trial of Dr. Rigolf Hennig for Disparagement of the Federal Republic, which took place in Lüneburg District Court under the provisions of Section 90a of the Penal Code [21KLs 5102 Js 6590/05], Attorney Stolz, as Attorney for Defense, submitted a written document entitled “Motion” on 13th December 2005. The motion contained a quotation from Gilad Atzmon (Translator: Atzmon is a prominent anti Zionist Jewish writer and musician), who described the historiography of the Second World War and the Holocaust as a “complete falsification” initiated by Zionists and Americans. In addition to this, Attorney Stolz said that that the words of Atzmon were “dynamite” that had created a “breach” (in Zionist fortifications) that should now be enlarged through new attacks.

[Page 2 of Accusations]

She then characterized a statement of the Iranian President Ahmadinedschad as a no less effective blow against the “Religious Dogma of Holocaust,” quoting him as follows: “A number of European countries persist in alleging that Hitler murdered millions of Jews in ovens... we do not accept this allegation as true...”
She also alleged in her motion that Germar Rudof’s Lectures on the Holocaust have “uprooted the Holocaust.”

2. On 22 December 2005 Attorney Stolz presented her summarization, in which she stated that the German Reich still exists legally: consequently, the Federal Republic has no legal existence. She maintained that where the “socalled Holocaust” is concerned, the (distorted) historical picture is finally being straightened out. She stated literally: “The Holocaust Lie is disintegrating... this Court can no longer deny the increasingly articulated doubts about ‘Holocaust.’” On both trial days, numerous persons were present in the spectator area of the courtroom.

II

1. In a public trial session [(266 b Ds) 81 Js 769/06 (365/04)] before Tiergarten County Court in Courtroom B237 in the Turmstrasse 21 in Berlin-Maobit on 2 February 2006, between 13.40 and 16:20 o’clock, Attorney Stolz, acting as Attorney for the Defense, stated the following to her client Gerd Walther:

[Page 3 of Accusations]

“The Jews are a people who have been commanded by their god Yahweh to overthrow or eradicate other nations. The Jews have no concept of loyalty to any nation: they live only for money and gold. In order to achieve world supremacy, they infiltrate their host countries and suck them dry with their lies and intrigues...
Appearing in the form of ‘Alljuda,’ the devil intends to destroy the Germans... No Jews were gassed at Auschwitz... Against the background of all this, the fact remains that there was no genocide of Jews.”

In the style of National Socialist racial ideology, Stolz thus depicted even German Jews as a parasitic people without moral values, a people that secures its existence only through the violent exploitation and subversive undermining of other peoples. In so doing, she questioned the basic rights of Jews to live and be recognized as citizens of equal value, citizens having equal rights in national society and the community of nations... She deliberately expressed doubt that mass murders of Jews occurred during the Third Reich under the leadership of the National Socialists. While making these statements, Stolz was well aware that her expressions of opinion carried the risk of damaging public trust in security under the law and inciting and increasing antagonism within the largely sympathetic public. Her utterances were intended to create an emotionally agitated and hostile attitude toward her Jewish fellow citizens.

[Page 4 of Accusations]

2. Between 14.10 and 17.30 o’clock on 13 April 2006, in the course of her summation in public main proceedings during the trial described in Paragraph 1 before Tiergarten County Court, Attorney Stolz stated the following: “You will now be thinking: that is to be considered in the context of the so-called extermination of Jews. However, did such an extermination really occur? That is the question!... By ‘elimination of Jews’ the Reich government did not mean physical extermination... One of the Jews’ weapons is the Holocaust cudgel, with which they keep the German nation down. We must knock this weapon out of the hands of the Jews. This is our historic task... Who is it that characterize the Nazis as ‘devils?’ It is the Jews...” In her chosen form, Attorney Stolz again questioned the historic fact of the extermination of Jews by National Socialists. As in Paragraph 1, she was again aware that such utterances transmit the fundamental danger of damaging public trust in the social consensus of condemning the Holocaust as criminal barbarism.

III.

In Case No. 6 KLs 503 Js 4/96 of Mannheim District Court, Attorney Stolz, in her role as attorney for the defense, represented the Revisionist Ernst Zündel, who was tried for inciting the masses.

1. In the main proceedings on 9 February 2006, Attorney Stolz submitted a motion in front of at least 50 visitors to instruct the lay judges that they are not bound by the Basic Law of the Federal Republic and the laws of the province of Baden-Württemberg in carrying out their oaths.
She maintained that this is because the Federal Republic does not legally exist, since under international law it is an instrument of foreign domination.

[Page 5 of Accusations]

She told the lay judges that they were committing crimes against the Reich, which under international law continues to exist as the authentic German state.
She based her argument on the fact that the lay judges were collaborating with foreign powers by swearing their oaths, since the Reich continues to be occupied by enemy foreign powers. Attorney Stolz went on to reiterate that the Federal Republic is an organ of foreign domination since it does not exist as an authentic and original state under international law. She said that because of this circumstance, the lay judges themselves were committing the crime of defaming the government; and that under the laws of the Reich, which was never legally replaced as the legitimate government of Germany, the lay judges were furthermore making themselves culpable of the crime of aiding the enemy.
She said they could be held responsible for their actions, and she then read portions of the Reich penal code, which include the death penalty. Attorney Stolz was attempting to impugn the honor of the lay judges and thereby intimidate them. In conjunction with her written motion of 18 Ocober 2006 she hoped to avoid punishment of her client on the basis of the existing legal and factual situation, which she had acknowledged.

2. After all those involved in the trial had been given opportunity to state their positions regarding the above mentioned motion, and the presiding judge had warned Attorney Stolz to desist from unlawful utterances, she continued as follows:
“The Federal Republic is an organ of foreign domination. The Allies continue to rule Germany. The justice system and this Court are also organs of foreign domination, as the Defense has demonstrated. We face the same situation as in the Nuremberg trials: the guilt of the accused was assumed from the beginning, and all evidence that would have disproven this guilt of the accused, and of the Germans, was disallowed. All previous Holocaust trials have followed the same principles as this trial. It can be explained only by the fact that historical truth is not allowed to be presented here. The Federal Republic is in fact a puppet regime of enemy powers. We in Germany continue as before, in occupied territory. (Legally) we are still in a state of war. The oath taken by lay judges is not binding because it serves the interests of enemy powers. We have indisputable evidence that the ‘proofs’ of ‘Holocaust’ were falsified... This is just another show trial.”

3. On the afternoon of 15 February 2006 Attorney Stolz continued to impede the main trial by constantly interrupting the presiding judge. In defiance of the obligations enumerated in Section 257a of the Penal Code, and after numerous unheeded warnings, she continued reading motions even after the presiding judge had withdrawn permission to speak. After the evidence acceptance phase of the trial began, this culminated in her resuming her performance in a loud voice before a large audience. This occurred while the presiding judge was reading aloud his instructions consisting of 46 points, as prescribed in Section 249 Paragraph 2 of Penal Code. Just as Attorney Stolz intended, the judge’s words were only partially understandable because of her simultaneous presentations, so that the main proceedings had to be discontinued and adjourned at 16.50 o’clock. The entire portion of the trial had to be repeated at a later date. By her conduct, Attorney Stolz intended to torpedo continuation of the trial and make punishment of the accused Zündel impossible.

In pursuit of her aim she expressed herself as follows: She said the present trial was not a proper trial before a proper court. She said the court was an instrument of foreign powers conducting a show trial like that of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg. She said that those assembled were not sitting before a real court since the presiding judge did not stand on firm legal ground.
She said that there was no forensic evidence for the existence of ‘Holocaust’ and that Mr. Zündel was just one of many who were trying to correct this historical error.

[Page 7 of Accusations]

4. During the main trial on 16 February 2006, Attorney Stolz resumed her constant disturbance by continually interrupting the presiding judge, so that he was unable to make himself heard. Just as she intended, the main proceedings again had to be adjourned at 10:30 o’clock.

5. Because of her above described conduct, Attorney Stolz was removed as attorney for the defense by order of the Karlsruhe Superior District Court (Ruling 3, 1/06, dated 31 March 2006, under the provisions of Section 138a, Paragraph 1, No. 3 of the Penal Code.) This was done on account of suspicion of attempted evasion of punishment. In response, she immediately lodged a complaint dated 10 April 2006, under the heading “Conducting Affairs for the German Reich Without Commission” and displaying the Reich Eagle as official stamp. Her complaint again disputed the officially organized mass murder of Jews during the Third Reich, which has been officially decreed to be historical fact. Her complaint also includes portions of Hitler’s Mein Kampf and openly exhibits anti Semitic passages along with a hostile attitude toward the Jewish population.

Among other things, Attorney Stolz wrote: “It goes without saying that Ernst Zündel must be found innocent if the threats of sanctions (against Germany) that are the basis of the indictment are recognized as a crime under international law. Likewise, it is perfectly clear that Ernst Zündel must be found innocent if the condemnation of the German Nation for genocide committed against the Jews is recognized as a gigantic propaganda lie... The 6th Superior District Court of Mannheim, in overeager obedience to the expectations of the Jews, is using criminal procedure in order to bar the determination of historical truth, against the purpose for which it was created... There is no reason for applying of Section 138a of the Penal Code...” (page 2)

[Page 8 of Accusations]

“The defense will demonstrate that the Federal Republic is committing a crime under international law and that the ‘Holocaust Muzzle’ (Section 130 Paragraph 2 of the Penal Code) is a device that is unlawful under international law... It is designed to repress the self-defense of the German nation against the murder of its soul...” (p.7)

“The power of the cowardly jurists who serve the OMF-BRD (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule: the Federal Republic) is not great enough to change the legal situation (of resistance to ‘Holocaust’ and support for revisionist historiography) that I have described. Despite the treachery of these vassal functionaries, the situation (revisionist trend) remains the same. And even if the so-called “Richterschaft” of OMF-BRD (the body of vassal judges), in order to continue receiving their blood money, unanimously shut themselves off from enlightenment (and reject the truth) in this situation, it will still blaze a new legal trail, because not all jurists associated with the OMF-BRD are scoundrels.” (page 10)

“And yet, the Jews are not God, even though they might think they are. On the contrary: Jesus referred to them as “Children of the devil” and called their god “a murderer since the beginning” and “the father of lies.” Do the jurists in the service of the OMF-BRD want to deliver the Germans over to the Children of the Devil and their lies? ...Every time Holocaust Jurists in future rule that our evidentiary motions demolishing “Manifest Obviousness of Holocaust” must remain inadmissible, even punishable “Denial of Holocaust,” we will continue to hurl in their faces that they are common criminals, regardless of whether they act out of capriciousness, cowardice or malice. They are committing arbitrary violence against our nation -- which the enemy commissions – and through this violence, they contribute to the enemy’s success.

[Page 9 of Accusations]

Our relentless foe has targeted our soul, which he seeks to kill with these unproven allegations of homicidal gas chambers... It was my right and my duty to do everything – everything! -- in order to introduce doubt about the veracity and authenticity of ‘Holocaust’ in the considerations of Judge Meinerzhagen and colleagues, better yet to enlighten them to the fact that the “Manifest Obviousness of Holocaust” has been a lie from the very beginning.” (p. 13)

“Don’t you see with what sophistication the Jews are attacking the fundamental assumptions of German legal thought? You must finally comprehend what a gauntlet the truth is forced to run in our country!” (page 14)

“In the foggy atmosphere of the Holocaust religious cult, the legal apparatus of the OMF has degenerated to a new Inquisition. Behind it stands a cynical power calculation: world Jewry discovered the opportunity to found both Israel and their behind-the-scenes world empire on the Holocaust Lie, where it would be safe from close inspection. The Jews know from experience that almost everyone can be made to believe almost anything if they can make them believe that almost everyone else believes it. And, thanks to extensive Jewish ownership of the media, almost everyone came to believe in ‘Holocaust’ through the power of suggestion... However, the attempts of ‘Holocaust’ jurists to disguise their criminal activities as justice is failing. They have gotten nowhere with their pretensions that ‘Holocaust’ has been proven factual... Their failure to prove these claims with documentary or forensic evidence completely disqualifies them. The very opposite of what they claim has repeatedly been proven true.” (pages 16-)

[Page 10 of Accusations]

“The German Reich is again recognized as the power that defended the Christian world against Talmudic Mammonism (the realm of Satan) to the bitter end, to the last drop of blood... Adolf Hitler is no longer perceived as the devil, but rather as the Savior.” (page 19)

“The Germans have every reason to keep in mind who it is that slanders and denigrates the German Nation’s struggle for survival against world Jewry during the years 1933 to 1945. They have every reason to remember who it is that slanders and denigrates Adolf Hitler, their leader in this desperate and heroic struggle. Is it the enemies of the Reich, the Jews, who do this, or not? What wretched creatures these ‘Holojurists’ are, who preach the deadly lies of the enemy within in their own four walls, while attempting to destroy the skeptics and seekers after after truth! Any German who would act this way is both an accomplice and a victim of genocide.” (page 26)

“However, the Jews can no longer claim that nearly everyone believes in their ‘Holocaust.” This is the end of the greatest lie in the history of the world.” (page 31)

“Presumptions, absurdities, falsifications and lies – these are the foundations on which ‘Manifest Obviousness of the Holocaust’ has been built. And now we, as trained professionals, are supposed to swallow ‘tatbeständlich vorausgesetzt’ - presumed factuality. Just how stupid do you think we are, Judge Meinerzhagen? The desperate attempt by world Jewry to protect their Great against the champions of truth – in this case, Ernst Zündel – has produced the opposite effect of what they intended.

[Page 11 of Accusations]

Under ever increasing persecution, ever more energy has gone into historical research, which has uncovered a great deal more than just Jewish lies about homicidal gas chambers, which is now a closed chapter. It has become clear to all who can see that world Jewry is not the victim at all, but rather the culprit. At last, the halo of innocent victim has been pulled from its head.” (page 34)

“Gaining indirect rule over the world, primarily through usury and media power, is a central tenet of the belief that Jews are the chosen people... Jews live in the belief that Yahweh commanded them to murder all nations who resist fulfillment of their divine mission of taking over the Promised Land and ruling the world.” (page 37)

“All anti Jewish reactions of the host nations -- spiritual, cultural, political or economic -- always have their origins in Jewish ideology’s assumption of superiority: because of their belief that their nation is chosen by God... The Jews believe that all other nations exist to serve, be ruled and exploited by them.” (page 40)

To us the Jew seems like an atheist... Burdened as we are with guilt complexes, we are blind to the knife in his hand, with which he stabs us in the back when we press him to our breast.” (page 46)

“Quoting Henry Ford: If the real victor behind the numerous apparent and ostensible victors over the German Nation is the international Jew, will he place himself before a German court in order to clarify the question of whether ‘Holocaust’ – his universal all-purpose weapon – is truth or fiction? A voluntary relinquishment of power by the victor may occur among Germanic peoples, but it is not to be expected of Jews.
They believe in an inexorable god that commands them to plunder all other nations for his greater glory, and to enslave and if necessary to murder them.” (page 47)

“In Hitler, the German people saw their savior from interest slavery. The people shared his conviction that the enemies of the Reich, especially the Jews, had forced the Second World War on National Socialist Germany. The Jews did this in order to rob Hitler’s message of its brilliance... They accomplished this through their hatred and atrocity propaganda... Hitler had brought his gospel to all the nations.” (page 56)

“Now, nothing remains to you except open and bloody violence. However, open violence contradicts the Talmud. Yahweh commands the Jews to disguise their hostility and treachery against the non Jew, so that no shadow shall fall on his name.” (page 67)

Attorney Stolz ended her presentations with “Heil Hitler!” (page 67)

Attorney Stolz arranged to have her complete text placed on the Internet, on the website of the Revisionist Gerald Fredrick Töben, where it could be viewed worldwide. On 26 April 2006, it was viewed in Mannheim, among other places.

[Just before midnight, Adelaide time, on 5 July 2007, Fredrick Töben rang state prosecutor - Oberstaatsanwalt Meyerhöfer - and stated to Meyerhöfer he should have used Töben's academic title in the above sentence, then Töben asked him who at Mannheim had downloaded the material because surely they would be committing a criminal act. Meyerhöfer said that was none of Töben's business and hung up. - ed.AI]


[Page 13 of Accusations]

6. Attorney Stolz sent the above unsolicited document to Mannheim District Court with her letter dated 16 May 2006. Attached to it was Horst Mahler’s “Das hält keine Justiz aus” which included the following:

“Ernst Zündel believes the truth to be that the Holocaust, the most powerful lie in the history of the world, is an invention of the Jews.” (page 1)

“However it turns out, the show trial engineered by the Mannheim District Court against Ernst Zündel on charges of ‘Holocaust Denial’ is the beginning of the end of foreign domination of the German Nation.” (page 2)

“... the powerful battering-ram that will bring crashing down the Great Wall of ‘Manifest Obviousness of ‘Holocaust,’ which was built to protect the Great Lie.” (page 2)

“No system of justice can survive this... the crimes of the (OMF) judges contradict the very concept of administering justice.” (page 3)

“...to the same extent that criminality draped in judges’ robes is perceived to be what it is.” (page 3)

“If the body of judges fail in this task, they will collectively become culprits through omission... What is at stake is nothing less than the spiritual and intellectual murder of the German nation. This is being committed by our sworn enemies, swinging the Auschwitz cudgel.” (page 4)

[Page 14 of Accusations]

“In order to avoid becoming victims of another Jewish swindle in this situation, we should proceed to the question of the main goal of our enemies. In the long run, what are they trying to achieve with this greatest lie of all time? (page 4)

“The Jews are hated by all the world on account of their disruptive-destructive activities and on account of the executioner’s services they render on behalf of their world movement, services which are necessary for its success. They endure world hatred only because of the supremacist delusion they have of being God’s chosen people, and because of their expectation of being promised mastery of the world as compensation for their ordeal.” (page 5)

“As a result of the defenseless exposure to Jewish lies that was militarily imposed on the German Nation by the Second World War, the Jews were able to distort the German character behind a cyanide fog of Cyclon B, a fog which they manufactured after the War... Behind this covering fog, they distorted the German likeness to a Teufelsfratze, a grotesque devil’s image.” (page 6)

IV.

In Case Number 87 Ds 496 Js 25360/05 (136/05) in Potsdam County Court, Attorney Stolz defended Dirk Reinecke against charges of inciting the masses.

1. During the session of 7 February 2006, Attorney Stolz stated that no genocide of Jews had taken place. She maintained that the Jews were still available to the Reich (as laborers), and she denied the manifest obviousness of Holocaust.

[Page 15 of Accusations]

2. During the session of 11 April 2006, Attorney Stolz read aloud a Gegenvorstellung - legal remonstrance in which she stated the following:

“In your argumentation, you assume the so-called ‘Holocaust’ as an actual given event, existing in time and space. By doing this, you have set yourselves up to be founders of a religion. Religion is belief that rejects and forbids all doubt. World Jewry espied the opportunity to establish both Israel and their behind-the-scenes world empire by means of the Holocaust Lie, and it uses the Holocaust Lie to protect them from exposure and opposition.
World Jewry knows from experience that almost everyone can be made to believe almost anything if they think that almost everybody else believes it. Through the power of suggestion and association, the Jewish media has succeeded in making almost everyone in the Western World believe in ‘Holocaust...’ Holocaust Justice is Inquisition Justice, that is, pure criminality. It is in fact the worst kind of injustice, since it masquerades as justice.” (page 3)

“The Holocaust Jurists will never be able to climb out of the pit that they have dug for themselves. Appeals to the Bundesgerichtshof - Constitutional Court - do not help... The logically compelling proof presented here – the proof that the Court’s compulsory disallowing of evidence is not justice but rather Talmudic barbarism – meets with the same response in the Constitutional Court as in the lower courts.” (page 4)

[Page 16 of Accusations]

3. In her summarization of 11 April 2006, Attorney Stolz again expressed doubts about Holocaust. Around 10 – 20 visitors attended each session of the trial in Potsdam County Court.

On account of her actions listed above, we find that Attorney Stolz has violated her professional obligation to conscientiously practice her profession in a manner worthy of the respect and trust afforded attorneys at law.

We find that she has committed Volksverhetzung - incitement of the masses. Instances of this are: I.1, 2; II. 1, 2; III. 1,2,3,5,6; IV. 1,2,3;)

We find that she attempted Nötigung - coercion. Instances are III.1,3,4;

We find that she attempted Strafvereitelung - thwarting and evading punishment. Instances III.1,3,4;

We find that she insulted other attorneys. Instances III.2,6;

We find that she committed Verunglimpfung des Andenken Verstorbener - disparagement of the memory of the dead. Instances III.5,6;

We find that she used signs and symbols of forbidden organizations. Instances III.5,6.

[Page 17 of Accusations]

Results of Inquiries by Attorneys’ Court:

1. Since March 1998, Attorney Stolz has been registered as attorney at law with Ebersberg County Court as well as Munich District Courts I and II. She has not previously appeared before Attorney Court.

2. Attorney Stolz has not yet responded to the instances cited in the investigation by the Attorney’s Court.

3. a) The Instances in I. relate primarily to the Anklagesatz (indictment) of Lüneburg District Attorney dated 3 July 2006, case number 5104 Js 29348/05 (see SA b1. 1/26 and Sonderband I.) This indictment has not been placed on trial docket.

b) The instances in II. relate primarily to the indictment by Berlin District Attorney dated 28 December 2006, case 81 Js 1799/06, (see also SA B1. 104/111 and Sonderband II. The proceedings were provisionally discontinued in the Beschluss (ruling) of 3 May 2007 under Section 154 Paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code, in view of the indictment by Mannheim District Attorney.

c) The instances enumerated in III. and IV. relate primarily to the indictment by the Mannheim District Attorney dated 26 February 2007, case number 503 Js 2306/06 (see SA B1. 177/397 and Sonderbände III. – IX.)

The complaint has not yet been accepted. I refer to the ruling of Bundesgerichtshof (Constitutional Court) dated 24 May 2006 (B1. 357/362).

[Page 18 of Accusations]

4. Proceedings have been limited to the alleged facts of the case: Section 116 BRAO (BRAO: Bundesrechtsanwaltsordnung: body of Federal German laws governing attorneys), Section 154a, Paragraph 1 of the Penal Code. In view of the actual form in which Attorney Stolz used the letterhead, prosecution is ruled out there (see B1, 27/90 as well as Munich District Court I, case number HKO 2357/06).

The Attorneys Court for the Bezirk Rechtsanwaltskammer München (Munich District Chamber of Attorneys) is responsible for deciding the case (see Section 119 of BRAO.)

I hereby move and submit:

a) the imposition, through court order, of a preliminary ban upon Attorney Stolz, under criminal law, through a court ruling on the basis of Ordnungswidrigkeitenrechts (rules and regulations for legal procedure), thereby taking away her capacity to actively represent and support clients. This should be done under Section 161a BRAO.

b) the suspension of the proceedings. This should be done under Section 118 Paragraph BRAO.

I submit as body of evidence:

Documents:

Volume 2, Sachakten (documents of personal date),X EV 77/2006, GenStA (Generalstaatsanwaltschaft: office of the general state attorney), Munich, Sonderbände I – IX and Volume 1 Sachakten, 1 HKO (Kreistagsordnung) 2357/06, Munich District Court II

[Page 19 of Accusations]

II. Volume 2 Sachakten, X EV 77/2006, Generalstaatsanwaltschaft Munich, Sonderbände I – IX and 1 Bd. Akten, 1 HKO 2357/06, Munich District Court II.


Attorney Court, Munich Chamber of Attorneys

Official Seal: Mayerhöfer, Oberstaaasanwalt (Head State Attorney)
__________________________

See: Rigolf Hennig