View Single Post
Old January 31st, 2008 #8
Jimmy Dean
Whole Hog Sausage
 
Jimmy Dean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 245
Jimmy Dean
Default Sylvia Stolz - Mannheim - Days 7-11

Sylvia Stolz
GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany
November 2007 - January 2008
Days 7 - 11


Reported by Günter Deckert
Translated by Prof James M Damon
Published by Adelaide Institute

****************
Day Seven
of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
before Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4
6 December 2007
************************************************


There are two police cars parked in front of Mannheim Courthouse with eight police officers, including one female officer, on duty.
Scheduled for 9:00 am, proceedings begin at 9:07. There are the usual electronic inspections as well as body searches of persons who seem “suspicious.” Court is meeting in the small courtroom again today. Proceedings begin at 9:07. The Court is in its usual composition. District Attorney Grossmann is present with his bodyguard. Sylvia is present with Defense Attorney Bock and the court appointed lawyer, who was planted in her team over her objections. Horst Mahler is among the onlookers. In addition to the police there are 3 “Staschu” (Staatschutz: “State Protection”) agents. Staschu is the updated version of the old Stasi (Staatsicherheit: “State Security”) political police from DDR days. There is only one representative of the “poodle” media: Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. (The media are either ignoring the trial or else parroting official views). There are around 30 visitors, including half a dozen legal clerks and law students.

Presiding Judge Glenz begins the day’s proceedings by asking Sylvia if she wishes to provide details of her economic situation, in order to receive reimbursement for travel expenses. She declines, and informs the Court that she wishes to begin by elucidating documents that the Court has read into the record. She points out that she is on trial for a thought crime; and on account of the Court’s restrictive methodology, the public cannot possibly understand the interconnectivity of her thoughts. The public cannot perceive her strategy, and for this reason she demands a formal ruling by the Court. Glenz responds that the Court will get around to it later.

At 9:11 the first witness is introduced. This is Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen, a.k.a. “Judge Nein,” who presided over the Zündel trial. He is famous/infamous for his ruling that "It is irrelevant whether the Holocaust occurred or not. Denying it is a punishable offense.” Accompanied by a police bodyguard, he enters the courtroom and takes a seat at the witness table. From his introduction we learn that he is a 56-year-old bachelor. Judge Glenz explains briefly what the Court wishes to know and then asks him to describe generally the Zündel trial, specifically Sylvia’s role in it.
Judge Meinerzhagen is quite talkative. Speaking in a monotone, he displays very little animation in describing the “ereignisreiche Verhandlung” (“eventful trial”). I refer the reader to my reports on the Zündel trial from its beginning until the bodily ejection of Attorney Stolz, which is available postpaid for 15 Euros postpaid.

The Court recesses for 20 minutes, then resumes.

From Meinerzhagen’s testimony concerning trial days in February and March 2006, we learn for the first time that he had caused extensive passages to be recorded as a security precaution. This has not been normal court procedure since 1975. We now know that Meinerzhagen and his two attending judges themselves added a great deal to the official court record, including his intention to file criminal a complaint against Sylvia, which he carried out. On the invitation of Judge Glenz, he reads several passages aloud. In response to his question as to whether there was legal collaboration between Sylvia and Horst Mahler, who had been debarred at the time of the Zündel trial, Meinerzhagen responds in the affirmative.

Referring to documents before him, Meinerzhagen concludes his testimony at 11:57. Occasionally he needs prompting by Judge Glenz, who has the official trial history before him. Meinerzhagen’s memory is not the best -- what a contrast with the astounding memory feats of a certain group of “Holocaust” witnesses! Attorney Bock asks a few routine questions, and then it is Sylvia’s turn to question the witness. In consideration of the hour (12:05), she moves that the Court now recess for lunch; she also needs time to refine her questions. Judge Glenz wants to allow only 30 minutes for lunch. On Sylvia’s insistence, however, he recesses the Court until 1:00 pm. Proceedings do not resume until 13:20, partly because Sylvia overstays lunch break. A few visitors have left by now. Before allowing Sylvia to begin questioning the witness, Glenz admonishes her to “be objective” and “stick to the subject,” hinting at dire consequences if she fails to do so.

Sylvia asks the following questions:


QUESTION 1: She asks why Dr. Meinerzhagen was so concerned about conflicts between court appointed lawyers and the defendant Zündel?
- In response, Meinerzhagen refers to the brief appearance of an attorney named Schütz from Mainz, whom Zündel dismissed after a short time. [FOOTNOTE A] He says he removed Sylvia following her letter of 18 October 2005 because, in his view, she had proven unreliable for an “orderly trial procedure.” He says he also disapproved of attorneys Rieger, Schaller and Bock. In the case of Bock, the Karlsruhe District Court made a big fuss over his decision. He says he was concerned about proper procedure, since it had become clear to him that the trial was beginning to drag and he was worried about the possible loss of the remaining defending attorneys.

QUESTION 2: Is a defending attorney allowed to express doubt about official depictions of “Holocaust” in the interest of his or her client?
- Judge Meinerzhagen then attempts to explain and defend Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) as the Federal Criminal High Court defines it. He says it is the responsibility of the defense lawyer to impress on the accused what is appropriate trial procedure and to see that he or she understands and observes it.

QUESTION 3: Sylvia asks whether, at the time of the Zündel trial, Meinertshagen was familiar with the article by Spiegel Associate Fritjof Meyer in the Osteuropa issue of May 2002? [FOOTNOTE B]

- Dr. Meinerzhagen answers in the negative, saying he first became aware of the article when it was submitted along with a motion. Judge Glenz interrupts and asks why Sylvia is asking this question. Sylvia explains that if Meinerzhagen was aware of the Meyer article and its relation to Rechtsverletzung (judicial infringement), then her actions would have to be allowed as justified. Glenz then declares her question to be “verfahrensfremd” (foreign to the proceedings). He says it does not pertain to the matter at hand, is not relevant, is a distraction, etc., etc. For experienced visitors at political show trials, such as those who attended the Zündel and Rudolf trials, it is obvious what is coming next. Glenz announces that this court, like the Zündel and Rudolf courts, would prohibit “heikle Fragestellungen,” that is, the posing of tricky questions that relate to the substance of the proceeding itself. Sylvia points out that he cannot yet make such a ruling, since she has not yet asked her question. Attorney Bock supports her in this. Sylvia again starts asking her question and Glenz again butts in. She has to start over again, and a dispute develops between her and Glenz on the subject of “Rechtsbeugung” (bending the law). Is she “perverting the course of justice?” Sylvia points out numerous instances in which judges in political trials have clearly bent the law and acted unlawfully. Such incidents were numerous in the Zündel trial. She asks: isn’t a judge allowed, indeed required to take new evidence into consideration? After all, judges themselves have to determine what is evidence; they cannot forever refer to higher courts. Glenz asks what this matter has to do with the specifics of her case. Sylvia responds that Meinerzhagen thwarted her obligation to defend her client through presenting evidence. At this time (1:50 pm) Glenz recesses the Court and it retires to confer until 2:07. After recess Sylvia again poses her question concerning the Meyer article. If Judge Meinerzhagen had indeed been familiar with the Meyer article during the Zündel trial, then Sylvia’s actions were justified in the framework of “Nothilfe” (emergency measures.) [FOOTNOTE C.]

Judge Glenz interrupts again, saying she is not allowed to ask this question because it does not refer specifically to her indictment, and therefore Judge Meinerzhagen does not have to answer it.
Sylvia remarks that his ruling provides still more proof that “Holocaust” trials are exclusively political in nature and conducted under extraordinary trial procedure.

QUESTION 4: Sylvia asks Meinerzhagen why the Meyer article was not sufficient reason for him to entertain doubts about “Manifest Obviousness.”
-He responds that the Meyer article essentially confirms the extermination thesis.

QUESTION 5: Sylvia asks if it is Meinerzhagen’s belief that the Meyer article confirms the extermination thesis, even though it admits there is no empirical evidence for a crime site or the number of victims.
-Meinerzhagen responds that the site of the alleged extermination is irrelevant and the number of victims is an open question; it cannot be exactly determined. (FOOTNOTE D) Growing agitated, he adds that Auschwitz is nevertheless historical factuality.

QUESTION 6: Sylvia asks whether it occurred to Meinerzhagen during the Zündel trial that the “witnesses to extermination” were extensively contradicting one another? Here Sylvia is referring to contradictions between the official version of “Holocaust” and the conclusions in the Mayer article. Mayer’s conclusions did not result in a criminal complaint. It is now 2:20 pm and Glenz hastily interrupts the proceedings, which do not resume until 2:52. Glenz rules that Sylvia’s question regarding Meinerzhagen’s ‘subjective consciousness” has no relevance for the trial. His legal basis for the ruling is the Federal High Court’s “ständige Rechtsprechung“ (ongoing pronouncement of law.) Glenz further rules that all questions concerning Meinerzhagen’s awareness of “Holocaust” are inadmissible and prohibited.

QUESTION 7: Sylvia asks whether the varying opinions about the location of the Auschwitz “Holocaust” provoked doubts on Meinerzhagen’s part.
-He refuses to answer, invoking Judge Glenz’s most recent ruling.
When Sylvia calls on Glenz to allow Meinerzhagen to respond, Glenz replies that Meinerzhagen need not answer, in view of his most recent ruling. Again Sylvia demands a ruling by the entire Bench.
After brief whispering among the judges, Judge Glenz announces that the Court supports his ruling.

QUESTION 8: Sylvia points out that for years it was assumed to be factual that several million Jews were gassed at Auschwitz and asks if the witness statements are still considered valid, even though Auschwitz Museum Staff has drastically reduced the estimate of victims from around 4 million to around 1 million?

-To this Meinerzhagen replies that Auschwitz is considered the principal site of Jewish extermination. He calls this an “unchallenged historical fact” his answer causes him to wax enthusiastic and his voice grows agitated. Glenz interrupts again and announces that questions pertaining to the subjective perceptions of the witness are not allowed, since they do not pertain specifically to items in Sylvia’s indictment. Sylvia again demands a decision by the entire Bench [FOOTNOTE E]. The jurists recess for conference from 3:15 until 3:20 and Glenz, as expected, announces that the Court supports his ruling.

QUESTION 9: Sylvia then asks Judge Meinerzhagen if he was familiar with the Federal Parliament’s resolution concerning “Manifest Obviousness” at the time of the Zündel trial. [FOOTNOTE F]

-On grounds of the Court’s ruling, Judge Meinerzhagen refuses to answer the question. However, in a sudden burst of animation he says “But it is true!” to which Sylvia remarks that she would like to clarify the matter, but the Court will not allow it. At 3:35 Judge Glenz again orders a recess for conference to consider Sylvia’s question. “MM Mack,” the Reporter from the poodle Mannheimer Morgen newspaper, then leaves the courtroom. (FOOTNOTE G)

Proceedings resume at 3:52. The Court affirms Judge Glenz’s ruling that the question will not be allowed. Furthermore, Glenz threatens to take away Sylvia’s right to question witnesses if the Court suspects that she is abusing the right to question witnesses. Sylvia responds by explaining anew that her actions were justified in the context of Nothilfe (Emergency Measure): Evidence or information that was relevant to her client’s defense was available, and she would have been remiss in her professional duties if she had not made the attempt to introduce them. Furthermore, she adds, justice demands that Judge Meinerzhagen’s subjective feelings must be considered, since he was the presiding judge in the Zündel trial.

The Court remains in the room and whispers a good bit, and then Judge Glenz announces that the other judges support him. Sylvia refuses to give in and declares that she intends to oppose such repressive measures of this Court with all the means at her disposal.

QUESTION 10: Sylvia observes that, according to Judge Meinerzhagen, the “Holocaust” is a historical fact. She now asks him whether, as a jurist, he requires a legal basis for his conclusions. Then she asks what is the basis for his conclusion that “Holocaust” or the alleged extermination of Jews during the Third Reich is historical fact, since the questions of place and number of victims have not been authoritatively established? Judge Glenz immediately interrupts again. At 4:07 the Court retires to confer on the admissibility of the question. At 4:17 Glenz announces that the Court must confer further. He concludes the day’s proceedings and announces the trial will continue on Thursday, 6 December at 9 am. (FOOTNOTE H)

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


FOOTNOTES

FOOTNOTE A: It was Schütz’s suggested tactic for Ernst Zündel to plead guilty to all charges and submit no evidentiary motions in hopes of receiving a “mild” sentence.

FOOTNOTE B: This article, as well as the initial complaint filed against me and rejected by the Stuttgart District Attorney, is available for 5 Euros from your reporter.

FOOTNOTE C: “Acts of Emergency” and “Self Defense” provide legal justification for an action or tactic that would otherwise be disallowed in trial proceedings. An “Emergency Act” is legal defense that is allowable in order to defray an actual illegal attack from oneself or one’s client (Section 227 of Basic Law and Section 32 of Penal Code.) The necessary precondition for an Emergency Act is an imminent attack (not restricted to an attack on life and limb); and the party attacked can be a third person.

FOOTNOTE D: It is perhaps significant that the Court Reporter in the Zündel trial, Hamm, did not give his name. In my first trial in Mannheim District Court, for acting as interpreter during a lecture given by Fred Leuchter in Weinheim in November 1991, he was an attending judge of the Nussbruch Court. Dr. Nussbruch, a member of SPD who introduced himself as a Jew, read aloud in Court a letter to the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung that had been written by Michael Wolfsohn. Wolfsohn is an Israeli born Jew, possessor of a BRDDR passport, and professor of modern history at the Bundeswehr University in Munich. According to his letter 1.1 million persons, primarily Jews, were murdered at Auschwitz.

The District Attorney at that time was represented by “my good friend” Hans-Heiko Klein, who has since enjoyed a distinguished and lucrative career as “Nazi Hunter and Holocaust Prosecutor.” Since that time I at any rate have been a “True Believer” in the magic number of Six Million: “Believe or Go to Jail!”

FOOTNOTE E: this is necessary because otherwise there would be no grounds for appeal to the next higher court, which is the BGH (BundesGerichtsHof).

FOOTNOTE F: this can most certainly be obtained from Sylvia or Horst Mahler.

FOOTNOTE G: In today’s issue of Mannheimer Morgenblatt [<www.morgenweb.de>] as well as the Weinheimer Nachrichten, there is on lower part of Page 3 a rather long article by Steffen Mack with the title “Holocaust Denial: Zündel Judge Testifies Before Mannheim District Court in Trial of Sylvia Stolz” and subtitle “...Witness Meinerzhagen and His Nightmare,” accompanied by a small passport photo of Meinerzhagen.

Then follows the usual inflammatory article so typical of the German poodle press, written in the neoprimitivist style of BILD magazine. Here are a few excerpts:

“Judge Glenz allowed Stolz to bluster for five long days before imposing a time limit on her presentation... Stolz keeps on quacking in her high pitched but penetrating voice, constantly attempting to support her crude theories of world conspiracies with absurd tracts... Her 71-year-old companion Horst Mahler, who spent the morning dozing among the onlookers, brings her a salad in a bag... The 44-year-old Stolz is a vegetarian: just like Hitler! She enjoys telling her audience...

Meinerzhagen sits slumped over in the witness chair... It is now for others to pass judgment on this woman.”

Mack’s reporting is not just slanderous and irrelevant, it is untrue! Mack was sitting directly in front of me today while Horst Mahler was sitting in my row, several seats distant. Since Mack never turned around, he could not possibly have observed Horst dozing.

I glanced at him several times and did not see that he was dozing.

This is yet another example of the Poodle Press’s great reluctance to report the particulars of what is said in this trial. Their idea of reporting consists of personal attacks and parroting official views.

FOOTNOTE H: this evening, 5 December, a little after 10:00 pm a friend relayed a message from Sylvia with the news that tomorrow’s proceedings have been cancelled. The reason given is that the Court needs additional time to confer. In plain language this means that on coming Tuesday 11 December, we can expect a Court ruling forbidding Sylvia to continue questioning Judge Meinerzhagen.

Attorney Bock informed me that the court reporter of the Meinerzhagen Court, Hamm, will also be questioned as a witness.

Thus the Court will not meet on Thursday, 6 December.

Günter Deckert
Weinheim am der Bergstraße, den 5./6. Dezember 2007

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


POST SCRIPTUM
These reports on the Stolz trial are neither a simultaneous transcription nor a complete account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I ask that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author.

Please consider that compiling these reports takes at least four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim takes even longer and in addition, costs considerable money. I can donate my time but money is very scarce. Every trip to Mannheim including gasoline, parking and a light lunch costs me around 35 Euros. If you are able to make a small contribution to help offset these expenses, I ask that you transfer the amount to: Konto 134345-754/G. Deckert – Postbank KA, BLZ 660 100 75, Vermerk „LG MA/SSt.“
I wish to thank our sympathizers Lother E., Klaus f., and Dieter G., as well as Frau Ilona O. for their contributions to my expenses, as well as Giovanni G. in Sweden who is makeing monthly contributions for the duration of the trial.

It would be a very good thing if, despite the season’s wintry weather, the champions of an objective depiction of contemporary German history could appear in greater numbers.
It would encourage Sylvia in her valiant struggle for her career as well as a balanced historiography.
Not everyone still has to work, and a single day of vacation time would reward the visitor with eye opening revelations about the courts and legal situation in the “freest country that ever existed on German soil.”

*****************
Day Eight
There was no hearing on 8 December2007
*****************


****************
Day Nine
11 December 2007
****************


There are no police cars parked in front of Mannheim Courthouse today. I go through the usual security checks in the main courtroom, where 6 criminal police agents on duty, including one female, all armed; and there are three more policemen in the second courtroom. In addition there are a bailiff and 3 “Staschu” (Staatschutz or political police), including the bodyguard of District Attorney Grossmann. (What’s in a name? “Grossmann” could translate as “Big Shot!”) Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgen is the only representative of the media, which is giving the trial very little coverage except for parroting official statements. There are around 30 visitors today.

Scheduled for 9:00 am, proceedings begin at 9:10. The court is present in its usual composition, including Presiding Judge Rolf Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia with her two attorneys. Horst Mahler is seated among the visitors. At 9:12, Witness Meinerzhagen, who presided over the show trial of Ernst Zündel, is dismissed. He goes to wait in another room. Judge Glenz then announces the Court’s ruling on the last question, which had to do with Judge Meinerzhagen and “his subjective impressions and knowledge in the matter of Holocaust.” The Court supports Glenz in his ruling. When Sylvia’s questions had driven Judge Meinerzshagen into an untenable position, Judge Glenz put an end to her questions, ruling that they were “not pertinent to the specific charges” listed in Sylvia’s indictment. The Court backs Glenz in disallowing Sylvia permission to question Meinerzhagen further.

In her Gegendarstellung (response), Sylvia objects to the court’s curtailing her right to question witnesses.
[FOOTNOTE 1: Gegendarstellung (Attorney’s Response
If the Court refuses an evidentiary motion, whether submitted orally or in written form, a response is permitted. Although the motion cannot be submitted in toto, it can be submitted in considerable detail. In this way the “public” (meaning visitors, in this trial) can learn a little about the contents of the refused motion. Since the “mainstream media” report few details of political show trials, the public must rely on alternative reporters for information concerning denied motions and responses.]

Sylvia emphasizes that there is a strong material connection between her indictment and her attempted defense of Ernst Zündel. This defense had to do with establishing her legal right to Notwehr (emergency defense) as provided under Section 32 of the Penal Code. She points out that she is attempting to demonstrate how Judge Meinerzhagen improperly bent the law with his measures against her in the Zündel Trial, while the present indictment against her is misrepresenting her intent as “coercion” and “evasion of punishment.” If the Court had accepted her demonstration of how Judge Meinerzhagen improperly bent the law, and how he also knowingly violated the duty of the Court to investigate and determine empirical truth, then her actions would have been acceptable under the provisions of Section 32 (Emergency Defense.) Sylvia clearly and painstakingly makes her point; her presentation is best described as a short lecture on jurisprudence.

Glenz is visibly growing impatient; he interrupts, then allows her to continue. In support of her legal argument, Sylvia mentions a study by the University of Münster on the subject of “Mythos” that is available on the Internet, at Wikipedia among other places, <http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mythos>

She explains that under the subheading Zeitgenössische Mythe (Modern Myths) the University of Münster article describes modern and postmodern myths, that is, irrational concepts that exist without empirical foundation. Thus the German nation has been psychologically conditioned by its victorious enemies to despise itself as a nation of evildoers. Within the German Nation, within the German government, even within the German judicial system there are henchmen who willingly commit cultural genocide against their own people and seek to destroy the German national spirit. As an example of this she reads long selections from an article by Milocz Matuschek in the Süddeutsche Zeitung on the subject of “’Holocaust’ Denial” and the “Founding Myth” of the European Union, which is available at <www.sueddeutsche.de/kultur/artikel/972/145639/>. (If you have problems downloading this article, contact me and I will email it to you.) Sylvia points out that the author of the article is demanding criminal sanctions against “crimes of remembrance.” This example from a leading German newspaper is clear evidence of how the “Holocausters” are attempting to revoke the Enlightenment concept of free expression. Voltaire’s maxim “I do not agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it” has become “I cannot disprove what you say, but I forbid you to say it.” She observes that the judges on this court are even now demonstrating their willingness to obey mandates of the anti Enlightenment. Such obedience is of course a requirement for a career in the present OMF (foreign dominated) judiciary. This explains why the courts are so prompt in referring to the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal High Court), which invented the illogical legal concept of Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) in Section 130 of Basic Law. They did this in order to neutralize traditional “body of evidence” argumentation. By doing this, the Federal High Court has created a new jurisprudence armed with a legalistic weapon of mass destruction, making fair trials impossible.

Here Judge Glenz interrupts her with a warning against repeating what she is forbidden to say. Sylvia does not allow herself to be distracted, however. She again describes how Judge Meinerzhagen broke and disregarded clear-cut rules of judicial procedure during the Zündel trial. She repeats that these improper actions are the reasons why her conduct was justified and why it cannot legitimately be prosecuted. Glenz interrupts again and asks whether Sylvia intends to provide the Court with a written version of her presentation. She answers in the affirmative and gives the Court an updated version. The time is now 9:54. Before the Court retires to consider Sylvia’s response, Glenz announces that the “Selbstleseverfahren” ruling will now go into effect. He announces a recess until 11:00 am.

Grossmann walks up to Stefen Mack, the reporter from Mannheimer Morgen, and speaks to him. Then they go into the District Attorney’s office.

[FOOTNOTE 2: In both the Mannheimer Morgen and Weinheimer Nachrichten issues of 12 December there is a short article by Mack.

Under the title “Denial of Holocaust” and subtitle “Court applies brakes to Defendant Stolz in Mannheim” we read the following: “In the incitement trial in Mannheim District Court, Judge Glenz has forbidden defendant Sylvia Stolz to continue questioning witness Judge Ulrich Meinerzhagen. Meinerzhagen had testified that when he was presiding over the trial of Holocaust Denier Ernst Zündel, he had to have defending attorney Stolz forcibly removed from court on account of her grotesque disruptions. The Mannheim District Court has decided that the 44-year-old Stolz ‘in stereotypical fashion’ was posing questions about Meinerzhagen’s attitude towards mass murder of Jews, and were therefore irrelevant. On account of repeated procedural abuse, the Court has revoked Stolz’s right to question the witness. In this way, it was possible for the Court to complete questioning of the first witness yesterday. Presiding Judge Rolf Glenz again warned Stolz about using the trial as a “propaganda event for Revisionist viewpoints.”
See <www.morningweb.de/nachrichten/politik/20071212>.]

Around 11:00, shortly before proceedings resume, Judge Meinerzhagen reenters the courtroom, accompanied by police escort. There are now three police officers in the room. Judge Glenz announces the expected Court ruling: Sylvia will not be allowed to continue questioning Judge Meinerzhagen. The reason given is that the Court does not want the trial to serve as a Revisionist forum with further denial of “Holocaust.” Furthermore, according to Judge Glenz, Sylvia persists in asking questions that do not pertain specifically to her indictment. Then he briefly summarizes the course of the trial so far. At 11:15 he concludes by warning Sylvia against “misusing” the trial. Sylvia announces her objections to Glenz’s dismissal of Meinerzhagen without allowing her to finish questioning him and demands that her objections be entered into the court record. Judge Glenz then announces lunch break until 12:45.

After lunch, proceedings move very quickly. “MM-Mack” has left the courtroom, as have 2 “Staschu” of the agents. Grossmann’s bodyguard is still present. The number of visitors has grown smaller.
Glenz prepares to read the Court’s latest ruling and Sylvia interrupts him, complaining that she has not been allowed to state her position on the last ruling and informing the Court that she intends to present a response. Glenz reiterates his intention to prohibit further “abuse of the Court” to which Sylvia responds that he considers everything the Defense does as an “abuse of the Court.” Glenz then announces that under a ruling the Court made on 10 December relating to Hauptakte VIII (?), the following written material will be read aloud and entered as evidence in the main proceedings:

1) Ruling of the 6th Greater Criminal Court, Presiding Judge Meinerzhagen, dated 9 March 2006;
[FOOTNOTE 3: “Documents” 1 through 6 are intended as the basis for Silvia’s sentencing (I assume that this trial will be reported in real time, as it happens.) Interested persons should contact Sylvia or Horst Mahler.]
2) Ruling of Superior District Court of Karlsruhe dated 31 March 2006;
3) Ruling of Federal High Court dated 24 May 2006;
4) Letter from Vögeley, President of Mannheim District Court, dated 15 March 2006;
5) Sylvia’s response dated 11 April 2006;
6) Sylvia’s letter to Potsdam County Court referring to Reineke Trial;
[FOOTNOTE 4: Reineke was the “motor” and instigator of the singing of the Deutschlandlied in the Meinerzhagen Court. “Judge Nein” punished each participant in that sing along with a fine for “Disturbing the Peace;” they could either pay 200 Euros or go to jail for four days. At the urging of Frau H. of Vlotho, the visitors contributed 600 Euros, the total of the fines, during the next recess.]

The three judges then begin taking turns reading these “documents” aloud, which has a powerful soporific effect because of their length and the monotone in which the judges read them. Judge Glenz scolds Horst Mahler for sleeping. The latter replies that he had to drive all night and besides that, the other judges are sleeping too. At 2:24, when the judges finish their reading, there is only one police officer in the room. Judge Glenz announces that the taking of evidence is now concluded, and a ten-minute recess follows. In a rare moment when he is not accompanied by his bodyguard, District Attorney Grossmann converses with others in the vestibule. Proceedings resume at 2:39.

Glenz asks Sylvia whether she has read the documents dated 27 November 2006 and announces that the Court will next consider the application of Section 257a of the Penal Code in order to avoid “misuse of the Court.” He adjourns proceedings at 3:05, to be continued at 9:00 am on 12 December.
[FOOTNOTE 5: According to Section 257a of the Penal Code the Court can (but does not have to) give trial participants the option of submitting motions in written form. This does not hold true for the concluding summarizations or “Plädoyers” delivered by District Attorney, Defense and Accused as described in Section 258. Section 249 (reading aloud of written material) provides for corresponding options. My edition of Strafprozessordnung (Penal Code) is: Becks Texte , TB-Nr. 5011, StPO, 27. Auflage, München 1996. If anyone is interested, I can send the text.]

***************
Day Ten
12 December 2007
****************



No police vehicles are parked in front of the courthouse today. At the security check there are 6 policemen and one bailiff. They are not using the x-ray machine today, only magnetic sensors, and there is no gratuitous harassment. The court is assembled in its usual composition: Judge Glenz with two attending judges, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia with her two attorneys. Horst Mahler is as usual seated among the visitors. There are 3 police officers in the courtroom, one of which is female. In addition there is a “Staschu” (political police) agent, in addition to District Attorney Grossmann’s bodyguard, who is sitting in the last row of the visitors’ section. There is no representative of the mainstream media, which generally boycott show trials except for parroting official comments.
There are only around 15 visitors today, including three persons from Berlin. One of these is Andreas K. who attended all the Zündel, Rudolf and now Stolz trials.

Scheduled to begin at 9:00 am, proceedings begin at 9:11. Judge Glenz allows Sylvia to speak. She again objects to the court rulings that have curtailed her presentation and denied her right to question the witness. She points out that Section 257a of the Penal Code is the so-called “muzzle provision” used to silence dissenters in show trials. She remarks that “Glenz and Company” trials are providing bountiful fresh new evidence, if such is needed, of Talmudic domination “OMF”, Germany’s present government. There is a short recess at 9:45 and resumption at 9:55, at which time the “Staschu” agents leave. Judge Glenz then announces the newest Court ruling: all legal motions must now be submitted in writing, according to Section 257a of the Penal Code. Then he reads a long list of ostensible reasons for the newest limitations on the Defense. Their gist is that Sylvia has been misusing court procedure. Furthermore her motions themselves have contained indictable offenses and are irrelevant to the specific charges listed in her indictment. He says that the written “Judaism Motions” have been “pre-examined by both the attending judges.”
However, there is a need for additional consultation in view of the possibility of her submitting evidence relating this point. At 10:30 he announces the midday recess until1:30 pm. Since I have several things that require my attention, I ask Horst Mahler what he expects in the afternoon. He says he expects the Court to rush the trial to an end, especially since the indictment mentions that no more witnesses will be called except for Hamm, who was the historian of the Meinerzhagen court.
[See my previous footnote on Hamm. In my first Leuchter/Deckert Trial in the fall of 1992, he was an attendant judge on the Nussbruch Court. At that time I submitted a motion to have the two lay judges summoned.]

Horst says that Sylvia will submit the 12 written motions this afternoon in writing, as is now required. I also spoke to Attorney Bock, whose expectations were the same as Horst’s. We agree that I will telephone in the evening, which I do. Horst reports that Sylvia has submitted the twelve motions, all of which they expect to be rejected. It is doubtful whether the Court will be able to rush through all this through on Friday, since Sylvia has the right of responding to each rejection. The Court will no doubt need a great many recesses to confer. He says the session concluded at 2:45, to be resumed at 9:00 am on Friday, 14 December.

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


POSTSCRIPT

This is the first anniversary of the Teheran Holocaust Conference, which continues to have international after effects. If anyone wants information about this event, please contact me. I have a great deal of documentation, especially in English.

My reports on the Stolz trial are neither a simultaneous transcription nor a complete account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I ask that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author.

Please consider that compiling these reports takes at least four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim takes even longer and in addition, costs considerable money. I can donate my time but money is very scarce. Every trip to Mannheim including gasoline, parking and a light lunch costs me around 35 Euros. If you are able to make a small contribution to help offset these expenses, I ask that you transfer the amount to: Konto 134345-754/G. Deckert – Postbank KA, BLZ 660 100 75, Vermerk „LG MA/SSt.“


I wish to thank our sympathizers Lother E., Klaus f., and Dieter G., as well as Frau Ilona O. for their contributions to my expenses, as well as Giovanni G. in Sweden who is making monthly contributions for the duration of the trial.

Grüße von Günter Deckert

****************
Day 11
14 December 2007
postponed on account of the court considering Sylvia's twelve motions
****************


Source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene3.htm