View Single Post
Old November 16th, 2010 #1
alex revision
Senior Member
alex revision's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 16,311
alex revision
Default News Concerning Siegfried Verbeke

News Concerning Siegfried Verbeke

Siegfried Verbeke was arrested and imprisoned at the same time as Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf, all three being accused of “Incitement of the Masses.”

Whereas the two latter defendants received severe sentences, Verbeke was released on 5 May 2006 after three months’ imprisonment in Amsterdam plus six months’ imprisonment in Heidelberg as well as payment of bail bond of one thousand Euros.

His defense attorney, Michael Rosenthal defended him very effectively.
On 18 July 2007, two years after Verbeke’s initial internment, the prosecutor (Grossmann) made a very surprising offer.

He proposed that charges be dropped and the entire proceedings dismissed:

“...Provided that the accused renounces all claims for compensation, a motion can be submitted for discontinuation of proceedings.”

Verbeke declined Grossmann’s proposal because he believed that Paragraph 130 of the German STRAFGESETZBUCH (Penal Code) violated Article 2 of the German GRUNDGESETZ (Basic Law), and he was determined to present this arguement before the BUNDESVERFASSUNGSGERICHT (German “Constitutional Court.”

Furthermore he and his wife were unwilling to waive claims for damages.
Unfortunately, a recent ruling by the Mannheim District Court has given the whole affair an entirely new twist.

Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 2,

Ruling of 1 July 2010

In the Criminal Case of Siegfried Verbeke on the Charge of Inciting the Masses and Other Charges:

1. On the motion submitted by the District Attorney, the trial is discontinued under provisions of Section 154 Paragraph 2 of the STRAFPROZESSORDNUNG (Rules of Criminal Procedure.)

This is because the defendant was convicted of Racism and Xenophobia by Brussels Correctional Court on 11 December 2008 (effective 6 January 2009) and sentenced to a fine of 500 Euros.

The punishment that can be expected in the present case, in conjunction with the aforementioned punishment, is not great enough to warrant consideration.

The court costs and defendant’s necessary expenses shall be paid with public funds.

2. The arrest warrant of July 14, 2004 by the district attorney’s office of Mannheim is vacated and the bond of one thousand Euros is refunded.

3. The defendant is not granted compensation from public funds for the loss of his freedom from 26 November to 10 December 10 2004 and from 3 August 2005 to 5 May 2006.

Hon. Krenz, Chief Justice of the District Court

Hon. Beck, Justice of the District Court

Hon. Becker, Justice of the District Court

Why the German justice system should use the verdict of a Belgian court in a wholly unrelated case in order to annul a German criminal charge eludes our comprehension.

We assume that the prosecutor is reluctant to bring a case against a defendant who is defended by a Jewish lawyer and a case that jeopardizes Section 130 of the German Penal Code as well.

Unfortunately the decision is final and closes the case.