Vanguard News Network Forum - View Single Post

Jimmy Dean · January 31st, 2008

Sylvia Stolz
GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL
Mannheim, Germany
November 2007 - January 2008
Days 4 - 6

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

******************
Sylvia the Proud

What’s in a name? Quite a bit in the case of Sylvia Stolz. “Stolz” means “proud” in German, and that word describes Sylvia very well: proud and undaunted. No wonder her patriotic supporters call her “the German Joan of Arc.”
****************
Day Four
of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz
before Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4
26 November 2007
************************************************

Scheduled for 9:00 am, today’s proceedings begin at 9:10.

Eight policemen are present as well one bailiff, but there are no police vehicles parked in front of the courthouse today. The usual members of the court are present including District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia Stolz, who is accompanied by Horst Mahler and her two attorneys. At first there are two armed policemen in the courtroom, then six more are added along with three Staschu (Staatsschutz) agents (these are the new German political police patterned on the old Stasi from DDR days.) There is one representative of the “poodle press”: Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. There are about 30 visitors, although the most prominent Revisionists are not here today.

Sylvia begins with her response to the Court ruling of 19 November.

She objects to the misrepresentations and false depictions regarding her testimony on “Holocaust” and OMF (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule). [OMF is a term formulated in 1948 by Carlo Schmid, the “Father of the Basic Law” and expert on international law. Schmid, a member of the parliamentary council that compiled Germany’s Basic Law, had the task of formulating an objective term for the legal basis of the new regime. The term had to describe the regime’s compliant nature without using derogatory phrases such as “vassal state” or “puppet government.” Since the Bundesrepublik with its Basic Law was never approved by plebiscite, it could not accurately be called a “constitution” under international law. For a more detailed description of OMF visit this website:

http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dis...ennig_engl.htm

Sylvia announces that as part of her testimony she intends to introduce Horst Mahler’s Heilsgeschichtliche Lage des Deutschen Reiches (Salvation History and the religious position of the Reich.) She also intends to read pertinent portions of other texts. In order to establish the extent of Jewish influence and the Jewish worldview and self-image, she then quotes a great deal from the Talmud and Torah as well as Schul-chan-aruch. This is a catechism of the Genara Mischna Talmud, a worldwide connecting link of Jewish culture. Sylvia observes that today one can also read about the “special Jewish world view” in an article written by the Israeli ambassador in Berlin that is available on the Internet. She points out that the threats of punishment in her indictment, as well as the shameful conduct of the Court in accepting the indictment, are evidence of foreign domination by the Jews, which is based primarily on the imposed “Holocaust” myth. On the basis of quotations, Sylvia points out numerous significant differences between German and Jewish Volksgeist (national genius.) This is followed by a short lecture on Jewish religion past and present.

Mack the Reporter leaves at 9:45, after just half an hour, but still writes a report on of the entire day’s proceedings. You can read it in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, at www.morningweb.de. Sylvia repeatedly asks the question: what is an attorney supposed to do when he or she is constantly discovering evidence that would help his or her client? Should the attorney just keep quiet and ignore it? Should the attorney ask whether he or she is going to be threatened, indicted and convicted for introducing of evidence that would help his or her client? The Staschu leave at 10:10 am and the visitors breathe more easily. Around 10:25, Judge Glenz interrupts Sylvia and reminds her of his judicial admonition that what she is reading in court has nothing to do with her indictment, which is for expressing doubt about “Holocaust,” and defaming the “BRDDR” (the present government of Germany, which combines the worst elements of the old “BRD” and “DDR.”)

Sylvia does not allow herself to be intimidated. She firmly responds that on the contrary, her presentations are very pertinent to the matter at hand, since it is necessary for her to establish the influence of the Talmud on Jewish court witnesses. Because of the influence of the Talmud, Jews have no inhibitions about bearing false witness against non Jews. Sylvia’s presentations go much too far for Glenz. He announces that he wants the Court instructions to be understood as an official admonition, specifically dictating this to the Court Recorder. Undeterred, Sylvia goes on to state that world Jewry now possesses the means, technique and influence to project and enforce their views worldwide. Sylvia observes that the Bench in this trial is attempting to hinder insight into Jewish thought and to present relevant and significant Jewish quotations as though such quotations were disconnected and taken out of context. She says that is the reason why, when introducing evidence, she intends to introduce Mahler’s testimony from his Berlin trial.

Sylvia then remarks on the obvious discomfort on the judges, who have firm instructions to avoid “providing a forum for Revisionism.” She points out that this is additional evidence that the Court is not concerned with establishing the truth: it does not allow material evidence. She says that Revisionists, by contrast, are truth seekers who have devoted themselves to researching the “Holocaust” in great detail for many years. She warns the Bench that it is in the process of crossing the “Rubicon of public shame and humiliation” and observes that authentic German law proceeds from a presumption of honesty, from the quest for truth and justice. She asks about the conscience of the jurists in this case: what do they want? Do they just want to be left in peace? Which do they prefer – to be heroes of the German nation and seek the truth, or to be despicable traitors who lack the will to pursue the truth? She observes that whatever choice they make, they will not be the same at the end of this trial as they were at the beginning. She admonishes the judges that if they convict her they will lose all sense of honor, because they are not conducting a real trial, but a show trial. If they convict her they will be acting in the capacity of henchmen of the “OMF.” Legally, ethically, historically and philosophically, they will be contributing to the assassination of the German character. They will be collaborating in the imposition of “Holocaust” religion on Germany.

Sylvia’s pronouncements cannot really be called a defense, but rather a kind of counter indictment. She points out that all her arguments are objective and directly relevant to points mentioned in her indictment. She explains that her actions, and her reasons for acting thus, are part of a political trial; and she declares that she intends to defend herself with all means at her disposal against a possible muzzle order. She asks: doesn’t an attorney have the professional obligation to demand, pursue and facilitate evidence that will help discover the truth? She reminds the Court that in conjunction with the trial of songwriter Frank Rennicke over three years ago, Horst Mahler submitted a detailed Verfassungsbeschwerde (constitutional complaint) that still has not been decided by the Constitutional Court. She insists that as an attorney, she has always acted in accordance with Section 193 of the Penal Code, which requires the attorney to take all llegitimate interests into consideration. She asks: is it even possible to indict a defense attorney for taking his or her professional obligation seriously and doing everything possible to meet these obligations? If the answer to this question is “yes” then the answer is further proof of Talmudic supremacy in the “BRDDR.” However, it is obvious to all that such tyranny can no longer be called “justice.”

Sylvia then demonstrates that the only thing obvious about official Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) is that it is not a fact but rather an opinion and an evaluation; and such opinions do not remain unchanged forever. New knowledge logically and inevitably leads to a new Offenkundigkeit. When the old Offenkundigkeit collapses, as the Manifest Obviousness of geocentricity collapsed in the 17th Century, then it becomes necessary to seek empirical evidence. Furthermore, in our present dispute, there is no legally binding definition of “Holocaust.” She points out that official Offenkundigkeit results in the de facto proscription of legally defending one’s client, which violates the first principle of justice in the Western world. She said that this again illustrates the “OMF” character of the vassal “BRDDR” regime, whose administrators are puppets of the victorious Allies.

At 11:05 Judge Glenz again interrupts her with remarks about her “circumlocutions.” Stolz responds that her presentation is quite relevant because she is also charged with criticizing the government. The Judge then calls a ten minute recess. There are now only two policemen in the courtroom and no bailiff. After the break Sylvia continues with her presentation, pointing out that an occupying power cannot expect loyalty from the nation it occupies.

Therefore: why should any attorney express a high regard for a branch of the “OMF?” How can Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag (representing a client with out commission), as Sylvia represents the Reich, which under international law still exists as the legitimate German government, be construed as a criminal offense? This was one of the charges leveled against her in Karlsruhe Superior District Court. She points out that this is in fact a legal question, and attorneys are hired to advise on legal questions. Are attorneys now required to accept the opinion of the prosecutor? If so, what is the use of attorneys in the “BRDDR”? Are attorneys required to defer to a system that is clearly illegal under international law, and must they obey the functionaries of a system that is clearly illegal? She points out that German judges allow only one view of contemporary history; and they proscribe and punish contradictory views.

Since the 8th of May 1945 the National Socialist world-view has been proscribed and repressed.

At 11:33 Judge Glenz interrupts her once again and announces that she is again repeating herself and engaging in circumlocutions.

Sylvia disputes this and states that, on the contrary, what she is presenting pertains very much to the point. Glenz admonishes her again and when Sylvia attempts to read a portion of the acceptance speech of the Jewish author and Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter, Judge Glenz becomes agitated. He says he does not want to hear it and he forbids her to quote it. Sylvia then requests a ruling on the matter by the Court, which withdraws to confer at 11:50 and returns at 12:00. Judge Glenz then announces that the Court supports his decision: Pinter’s opinion is not relevant to Sylvia’s indictment. He calls a noonday recess until 1 o’clock and the Court reconvenes at 1:10 pm.

As expected, Syvia counters the Court’s ruling with a reply in which she makes clear that the Pinter quotation is highly pertinent to the problem of “OMF” and “pax americana.” She explains that the Pinter quotation should not be considered as evidence, but rather the exposition of a thesis, and she again asks for another ruling by the Court. The court recesses until 1:38. As expected, the Court abides by Judge Glenz’s decision: the Pinter quotation may not be read into the record. When Sylvia attempts to summarize its contents, Glenz again interrupts and says he does not want to hear it, which prompts Sylvia to demand yet another ruling. At 1:50 the court again recesses and again resumes at 2:00 and Glenz again announces that the Court again upholds his decision that the Pinter quotation has absolutely no relevance to Sylvia’s trial. [Those who are curious to know why Judge Glenz is so determined to keep the Pinter speech out of the court record, can read it at:

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...lecture-e.html

Sylvia then moves for a recess in order to confer with Attorney Bock and Horst Mahler. The proceedings resume at 2:50, at which time Sylvia explains that she is attempting to break the judges’ blockade of an alternative world view that is not familiar to them. She points out that they are acting as henchmen for a worldwide system of repression, terror and injustice that the USA... Glenz interrupts her in mid sentence with the announcement that the Court is seriously considering imposing a time limitation on her testimony. Glenz asks whether she would give the Court a written version of what she has presented so that they would be able to better deal with it. Sylvia replies that she will provide the Court with her written text at the end of her presentation. At 3:00 pm the Court once again recesses to confer. It resumes at 3:20 with the announcement that it has not concluded its discussion; there is need for further deliberation. It announces that it will resume tomorrow morning at 11:00 and so terminates today’s session. A visitor does not understand and asks about the exact time , whereupon Glenz repeats “11 O’clock” in an extremely loud and agitated voice.

Today’s proceedings show that Glenz is becoming quite agitated.

They suggest that we can now expect a course of events similar to those of the Zündel trial.

****************
Day Five
27 November 2007
****************

What was evident to the knowledgeable observer yesterday, occurred today in part: the proceedings were cancelled. The only notice of this was a sign placed at the entrance to the courtroom: “Today’s Session Has Been Cancelled.” The Court did not give a reason or explanation. Since neither Sylvia nor Horst nor the two attorneys appeared, we can assume that they were notified. The cancelled session suggests that we can expect a judicial thunderbolt on Thursday. At the very least, the Court will impose a time limit on Sylvia’s presentation.

As I mentioned in my first report, I will not be able to cover the Thursday session. However, I hope that two friends of mine, with whom I discussed the matter, will share their accounts with me, so that I will be able to include them in my reports for the coming week.

Günter Deckert
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 27.11.2007

PS: I repeat my remarks from my first report, which hold true also for partial selections, reproductions and summarizations in languages other than German as well.

Many thanks to Frau Ilona O. as well as Josef K. and Manfred Kr. for their contributions to offset my travel expenses to Mannheim and preparing these reports.

Horst Mahler has also thanked me for my reports, which are the only alternative to official coverage of Sylvia’s trial.

****************
Day Six
29 November 2007
****************

Scheduled for 9 am, proceedings begin at 9:05 in a smaller courtroom.

There are the usual security checks with x-ray equipment, etc. but no incidents. The other courtrooms in Mannheim Court House do not carry out such security checks, but this one is used to conduct trials for violent crimes, grievous bodily harm, drugs, etc. Eight policemen are present along with three Staschu (political police, today’s counterpart of the old Stasi from DDR days) and one bailiff. Two police vehicles are parked in front of the courthouse. The court is present in its usual composition: Judge Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia Stolz with Attorney Bock as well as her court appointed lawyer. Horst Mahler is present as visitor. There is one very young female reporter from the dpa (Deutsche Presse-Agentur.) The media are boycotting the trial except for passing on politically correct clichés such as “Rightwing Extremist,” “Holocaust Denier,” “Neo-Nazi,” etc. There are also several very young female observers, perhaps students or apprentices. In addition there are around 30 visitors who come and go throughout the day. They are exasperated because the sound system is either out of order or turned off for the day, making it nearly impossible to hear what is said. In addition, Judge Glenz is speaking unusually softly, apparently on purpose. The visitors have to listen very attentively to hear anything at all, and for that reason the courtroom is remarkably quiet.

The proceedings begin with a brief dispute between Sylvia and Judge Glenz over his most recent ruling. He tells her that he sees no reason to change his decision. Attorney Bock contradicts him, pointing out in detail that he is constantly interrupting Sylvia and refusing to allow her to speak, which is unworthy of a court in a lawful society. At 9:10 the Court recesses to confer and resumes at 9:40. Previous to this, Sylvia made a motion that she be reimbursed for travel expenses, since she no longer has a source of income. The Court’s decision: Nein!

Sylvia then points out that the Court is doing everything it can to shut her up. She remarks that harboring doubts about “Holocaust” has become a thought crime in Germany. She again alludes to the never-ending foreign occupation and domination and observes that today the Jews rule all nations everywhere through their vassals. Racial mixing, which they promote for everyone except themselves, means the extinction of European ethnicity, while phony Jewish “democracy” and their perverted version of “human rights” (except for freedom of speech and opinion) result in bondage and Jewish rule: they are in fact Jewish inventions.

Sylvia points out that in every nation, the Jews have created a state within a state, with non Jews serving as Nutzvieh (useful animals), as is well demonstrated in Jewish laws and writings. She again quotes extensively from Jewish writings in support of Jewish supremacism, then she reminds the Court that it would not allow her to read from the speech of Harold Pinter, a Jewish winner of the Nobel Prize and an outspoken critic of Zionist American imperialism. Perhaps the following is the passage that Sylvia wished to quote in order to illustrate the nature of Zionist American hegemony:

I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources. The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honorable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right.

The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it. Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear, which we can see growing daily in the United States, is unlikely to diminish.

Sylvia then moves on to ask a question that also puzzles her supporters: if the Court is so intent on expediting proceedings and avoiding her “circumlocutions”, why did it set aside 20 days on the court calendar for this show trial? Judge Glenz then reprimands Sylvia, saying that her presentation does not respond to the disapproval expressed by the Court. She denies this and reminds the Court that this is the 3rd day of her defense presentation, therefore she cannot be interrupted and her testimony cannot be shortened or abrogated.
She says it has become obvious that the honorable presiding judge is not concerned about the length of her presentation, but rather its contents. Judge Glenz allows her to continue. She points out that people have a right to know what the expression “human rights” means to the Jews: namely the total plundering of non Jews and the imposition of Talmudic supremacism.

At 9:46 Judge Glenz again interrupts Sylvia and announces that he is now imposing a time limit on her presentations: he definitively and conclusively forbids her to continue speaking. She ignores his ultimatum and continues introducing exhibits regarding the recent decision of the Spanish High Court that decriminalizes dissenting opinions on “Holocaust.” She points out that the Spanish decision is posted on the Internet for all to read, and suggests that her exhibits will help the Mannheim District Court reach a proper verdict. Sylvia and Attorney Bock both rebuke the court for constantly retreating to chambers. It does not have to recess for a conference; the judges can discuss the matter in the courtroom. They demand an open and proper ruling by the judges.

Since Sylvia is no longer allowed to give oral testimony, but only to submit written documents, the attendant judge on the right of Judge Glenz asks Sylvia what sort of supporting (individual) documents she wishes to submit. Sylvia then hands over two large files of copies as well as two packets containing copies of Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures on the Holocaust” [posted on the Internet at:

<www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth/#download>].

The Court then recesses from 10:30 until 11.07.

After recess the Court announces that Sylvia will be limited in her defense to two hours, which may be extended at the pleasure of the Court. Judge Glenz then gives an oral summarization of Sylvia’s testimony, mentioning Jewish domination of Germany; “Holocaust” and the reasons why she doubts its authenticity; forensic evidence that “Holocaust” could not have occurred as officially promulgated; “OMF” and the foundation of Germany’s present Basic Law; the Talmudic assumption that only Jews are human and non Jews are mere animals; and the function of the United Nations in eliminating national characteristics, with the result that today’s young Germans have been brainwashed into no longer wanting to be German. At 11:26 Judge Glenz finishes reading the Court’s “muzzle” ruling and has copies distributed to the individual members. Concerning Sylvia’s motion for compensation for travel expenses now that she has no source of income, the judge remarks that she must fill out applications and submit documentations for expenses.

Sylvia now points out to the Court that she is faced with an entirely new situation, since she has been limited to two hours in which to present her case. This is an impossible task, as the Court well knows. Attorney Bock makes the motion that proceedings be discontinued and the Court adjourned for the day, since the Defense needs time to consult and reorganize. Judge Glenz totally ignores this motion! At 11:33 he orders a two hour recess for the noonday meal. After that, events move very rapidly. After lunch, Judge Glenz informs Sylvia that compensation for travel expenses is available only for destitute persons. She will have to fill out a written application and provide documentation.

Sylvia then complains about the Court’s “muzzle order” restricting her presentation to two hours. She points out that placing an arbitrary time limit on her argumentation, after having set aside 20 days for her trial, is an unjust and illegal denial of her right to present her case, it is in fact a Talmudic denial of her right to defend herself. She observes that Judge Glenz is living in the Judaic world, whereas she lives in the German world. She observes that in the Mannheim court the District Attorney does not have to lift a finger in order to gain convictions, since the judges conduct the prosecution. It is the same situation that prevailed in the Allied military tribunal in Nuremberg, in which the American Judge Jackson refused to allow Hermann Goering to speak.

She defiantly announces that, since two hours are totally inadequate for the presentation of her defense, she grants these two hours to the Right Honorable Presiding Judge to use as he sees fit! At 1:42 pm the Court again recesses for 5 minutes to confer, then announces the end of proceedings for the day.

Sylvia’s trial will continue on Tuesday, December 4th at 9:00 am, at which time, in accordance with Section 249 of the Penal Code, it will take evidence in Selbstleseverfahren (procedure of reading into the official public court record, since German courts do not keep complete records of proceedings.) These witnesses will be called: Presiding Judge Meinerzhagen, the specialist in “Holocaust Denial” who conducted Ernst Zündel’s trial; also a female judge from Berlin who presided over a case in which Sylvia represented the defense.

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

Some observations by your reporter:

During today’s proceedings it became very clear that Judge Glenz is “pulling out all the stops” in order to terminate this trial as quickly as possible.

The brief mention in the issue of 30 November of Manheimer Morgen, on page 3, is representative of the coverage of Sylvia’s trial in Germany’s “poodle press:”

Stolz Trial to Move Forward

The trial of Sylvia Stolz in Mannheim District Court for Incitement of the Masses will now continue with normal witness testimony. On the fifth trial day, Judge Rolf Glenz repeatedly warned the accused to restrict her testimony to the points of her indictment. Yesterday Stolz, an attorney who has defended several Rightwing Extremists, continued repeating the Holocaust Lie, however. Judge Glenz finally limited her testimony to two hours, which Stolz then refused to accept.

Notice that I wrote this report today based on descriptions by a friend who attended the trial, to whom I am very grateful. As I mentioned previously, I myself was unable to attend this session. I returned last night shortly before 12 pm from the Deutsches Haus in Erzgebirge to find 240 messages in my computer, in addition to this report.

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.“
Thanks!

Source:
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene2.htm

January 31st, 2008	#6
Jimmy Dean Whole Hog Sausage Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 245	Sylvia Stolz - Mannheim - Days 4-6 Sylvia Stolz GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL Mannheim, Germany November 2007 - January 2008 Days 4 - 6 Reported by Günter Deckert Translated by Prof James M Damon Published by Adelaide Institute **************** Sylvia the Proud What’s in a name? Quite a bit in the case of Sylvia Stolz. “Stolz” means “proud” in German, and that word describes Sylvia very well: proud and undaunted. No wonder her patriotic supporters call her “the German Joan of Arc.” ************ Day Four of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz before Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4 26 November 2007 ******************************************** Scheduled for 9:00 am, today’s proceedings begin at 9:10. Eight policemen are present as well one bailiff, but there are no police vehicles parked in front of the courthouse today. The usual members of the court are present including District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia Stolz, who is accompanied by Horst Mahler and her two attorneys. At first there are two armed policemen in the courtroom, then six more are added along with three Staschu (Staatsschutz) agents (these are the new German political police patterned on the old Stasi from DDR days.) There is one representative of the “poodle press”: Steffen Mack of the Mannheimer Morgenblatt. There are about 30 visitors, although the most prominent Revisionists are not here today. Sylvia begins with her response to the Court ruling of 19 November. She objects to the misrepresentations and false depictions regarding her testimony on “Holocaust” and OMF (Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule). [OMF is a term formulated in 1948 by Carlo Schmid, the “Father of the Basic Law” and expert on international law. Schmid, a member of the parliamentary council that compiled Germany’s Basic Law, had the task of formulating an objective term for the legal basis of the new regime. The term had to describe the regime’s compliant nature without using derogatory phrases such as “vassal state” or “puppet government.” Since the Bundesrepublik with its Basic Law was never approved by plebiscite, it could not accurately be called a “constitution” under international law. For a more detailed description of OMF visit this website: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dis...ennig_engl.htm Sylvia announces that as part of her testimony she intends to introduce Horst Mahler’s Heilsgeschichtliche Lage des Deutschen Reiches (Salvation History and the religious position of the Reich.) She also intends to read pertinent portions of other texts. In order to establish the extent of Jewish influence and the Jewish worldview and self-image, she then quotes a great deal from the Talmud and Torah as well as Schul-chan-aruch. This is a catechism of the Genara Mischna Talmud, a worldwide connecting link of Jewish culture. Sylvia observes that today one can also read about the “special Jewish world view” in an article written by the Israeli ambassador in Berlin that is available on the Internet. She points out that the threats of punishment in her indictment, as well as the shameful conduct of the Court in accepting the indictment, are evidence of foreign domination by the Jews, which is based primarily on the imposed “Holocaust” myth. On the basis of quotations, Sylvia points out numerous significant differences between German and Jewish Volksgeist (national genius.) This is followed by a short lecture on Jewish religion past and present. Mack the Reporter leaves at 9:45, after just half an hour, but still writes a report on of the entire day’s proceedings. You can read it in the Mannheimer Morgenblatt, at www.morningweb.de. Sylvia repeatedly asks the question: what is an attorney supposed to do when he or she is constantly discovering evidence that would help his or her client? Should the attorney just keep quiet and ignore it? Should the attorney ask whether he or she is going to be threatened, indicted and convicted for introducing of evidence that would help his or her client? The Staschu leave at 10:10 am and the visitors breathe more easily. Around 10:25, Judge Glenz interrupts Sylvia and reminds her of his judicial admonition that what she is reading in court has nothing to do with her indictment, which is for expressing doubt about “Holocaust,” and defaming the “BRDDR” (the present government of Germany, which combines the worst elements of the old “BRD” and “DDR.”) Sylvia does not allow herself to be intimidated. She firmly responds that on the contrary, her presentations are very pertinent to the matter at hand, since it is necessary for her to establish the influence of the Talmud on Jewish court witnesses. Because of the influence of the Talmud, Jews have no inhibitions about bearing false witness against non Jews. Sylvia’s presentations go much too far for Glenz. He announces that he wants the Court instructions to be understood as an official admonition, specifically dictating this to the Court Recorder. Undeterred, Sylvia goes on to state that world Jewry now possesses the means, technique and influence to project and enforce their views worldwide. Sylvia observes that the Bench in this trial is attempting to hinder insight into Jewish thought and to present relevant and significant Jewish quotations as though such quotations were disconnected and taken out of context. She says that is the reason why, when introducing evidence, she intends to introduce Mahler’s testimony from his Berlin trial. Sylvia then remarks on the obvious discomfort on the judges, who have firm instructions to avoid “providing a forum for Revisionism.” She points out that this is additional evidence that the Court is not concerned with establishing the truth: it does not allow material evidence. She says that Revisionists, by contrast, are truth seekers who have devoted themselves to researching the “Holocaust” in great detail for many years. She warns the Bench that it is in the process of crossing the “Rubicon of public shame and humiliation” and observes that authentic German law proceeds from a presumption of honesty, from the quest for truth and justice. She asks about the conscience of the jurists in this case: what do they want? Do they just want to be left in peace? Which do they prefer – to be heroes of the German nation and seek the truth, or to be despicable traitors who lack the will to pursue the truth? She observes that whatever choice they make, they will not be the same at the end of this trial as they were at the beginning. She admonishes the judges that if they convict her they will lose all sense of honor, because they are not conducting a real trial, but a show trial. If they convict her they will be acting in the capacity of henchmen of the “OMF.” Legally, ethically, historically and philosophically, they will be contributing to the assassination of the German character. They will be collaborating in the imposition of “Holocaust” religion on Germany. Sylvia’s pronouncements cannot really be called a defense, but rather a kind of counter indictment. She points out that all her arguments are objective and directly relevant to points mentioned in her indictment. She explains that her actions, and her reasons for acting thus, are part of a political trial; and she declares that she intends to defend herself with all means at her disposal against a possible muzzle order. She asks: doesn’t an attorney have the professional obligation to demand, pursue and facilitate evidence that will help discover the truth? She reminds the Court that in conjunction with the trial of songwriter Frank Rennicke over three years ago, Horst Mahler submitted a detailed Verfassungsbeschwerde (constitutional complaint) that still has not been decided by the Constitutional Court. She insists that as an attorney, she has always acted in accordance with Section 193 of the Penal Code, which requires the attorney to take all llegitimate interests into consideration. She asks: is it even possible to indict a defense attorney for taking his or her professional obligation seriously and doing everything possible to meet these obligations? If the answer to this question is “yes” then the answer is further proof of Talmudic supremacy in the “BRDDR.” However, it is obvious to all that such tyranny can no longer be called “justice.” Sylvia then demonstrates that the only thing obvious about official Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) is that it is not a fact but rather an opinion and an evaluation; and such opinions do not remain unchanged forever. New knowledge logically and inevitably leads to a new Offenkundigkeit. When the old Offenkundigkeit collapses, as the Manifest Obviousness of geocentricity collapsed in the 17th Century, then it becomes necessary to seek empirical evidence. Furthermore, in our present dispute, there is no legally binding definition of “Holocaust.” She points out that official Offenkundigkeit results in the de facto proscription of legally defending one’s client, which violates the first principle of justice in the Western world. She said that this again illustrates the “OMF” character of the vassal “BRDDR” regime, whose administrators are puppets of the victorious Allies. At 11:05 Judge Glenz again interrupts her with remarks about her “circumlocutions.” Stolz responds that her presentation is quite relevant because she is also charged with criticizing the government. The Judge then calls a ten minute recess. There are now only two policemen in the courtroom and no bailiff. After the break Sylvia continues with her presentation, pointing out that an occupying power cannot expect loyalty from the nation it occupies. Therefore: why should any attorney express a high regard for a branch of the “OMF?” How can Geschäftsführung ohne Auftrag (representing a client with out commission), as Sylvia represents the Reich, which under international law still exists as the legitimate German government, be construed as a criminal offense? This was one of the charges leveled against her in Karlsruhe Superior District Court. She points out that this is in fact a legal question, and attorneys are hired to advise on legal questions. Are attorneys now required to accept the opinion of the prosecutor? If so, what is the use of attorneys in the “BRDDR”? Are attorneys required to defer to a system that is clearly illegal under international law, and must they obey the functionaries of a system that is clearly illegal? She points out that German judges allow only one view of contemporary history; and they proscribe and punish contradictory views. Since the 8th of May 1945 the National Socialist world-view has been proscribed and repressed. At 11:33 Judge Glenz interrupts her once again and announces that she is again repeating herself and engaging in circumlocutions. Sylvia disputes this and states that, on the contrary, what she is presenting pertains very much to the point. Glenz admonishes her again and when Sylvia attempts to read a portion of the acceptance speech of the Jewish author and Nobel Prize winner Harold Pinter, Judge Glenz becomes agitated. He says he does not want to hear it and he forbids her to quote it. Sylvia then requests a ruling on the matter by the Court, which withdraws to confer at 11:50 and returns at 12:00. Judge Glenz then announces that the Court supports his decision: Pinter’s opinion is not relevant to Sylvia’s indictment. He calls a noonday recess until 1 o’clock and the Court reconvenes at 1:10 pm. As expected, Syvia counters the Court’s ruling with a reply in which she makes clear that the Pinter quotation is highly pertinent to the problem of “OMF” and “pax americana.” She explains that the Pinter quotation should not be considered as evidence, but rather the exposition of a thesis, and she again asks for another ruling by the Court. The court recesses until 1:38. As expected, the Court abides by Judge Glenz’s decision: the Pinter quotation may not be read into the record. When Sylvia attempts to summarize its contents, Glenz again interrupts and says he does not want to hear it, which prompts Sylvia to demand yet another ruling. At 1:50 the court again recesses and again resumes at 2:00 and Glenz again announces that the Court again upholds his decision that the Pinter quotation has absolutely no relevance to Sylvia’s trial. [Those who are curious to know why Judge Glenz is so determined to keep the Pinter speech out of the court record, can read it at: http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_priz...lecture-e.html Sylvia then moves for a recess in order to confer with Attorney Bock and Horst Mahler. The proceedings resume at 2:50, at which time Sylvia explains that she is attempting to break the judges’ blockade of an alternative world view that is not familiar to them. She points out that they are acting as henchmen for a worldwide system of repression, terror and injustice that the USA... Glenz interrupts her in mid sentence with the announcement that the Court is seriously considering imposing a time limitation on her testimony. Glenz asks whether she would give the Court a written version of what she has presented so that they would be able to better deal with it. Sylvia replies that she will provide the Court with her written text at the end of her presentation. At 3:00 pm the Court once again recesses to confer. It resumes at 3:20 with the announcement that it has not concluded its discussion; there is need for further deliberation. It announces that it will resume tomorrow morning at 11:00 and so terminates today’s session. A visitor does not understand and asks about the exact time , whereupon Glenz repeats “11 O’clock” in an extremely loud and agitated voice. Today’s proceedings show that Glenz is becoming quite agitated. They suggest that we can now expect a course of events similar to those of the Zündel trial. ************ Day Five 27 November 2007 ************ What was evident to the knowledgeable observer yesterday, occurred today in part: the proceedings were cancelled. The only notice of this was a sign placed at the entrance to the courtroom: “Today’s Session Has Been Cancelled.” The Court did not give a reason or explanation. Since neither Sylvia nor Horst nor the two attorneys appeared, we can assume that they were notified. The cancelled session suggests that we can expect a judicial thunderbolt on Thursday. At the very least, the Court will impose a time limit on Sylvia’s presentation. As I mentioned in my first report, I will not be able to cover the Thursday session. However, I hope that two friends of mine, with whom I discussed the matter, will share their accounts with me, so that I will be able to include them in my reports for the coming week. Günter Deckert Weinheim an der Bergstraße, den 27.11.2007 PS: I repeat my remarks from my first report, which hold true also for partial selections, reproductions and summarizations in languages other than German as well. Many thanks to Frau Ilona O. as well as Josef K. and Manfred Kr. for their contributions to offset my travel expenses to Mannheim and preparing these reports. Horst Mahler has also thanked me for my reports, which are the only alternative to official coverage of Sylvia’s trial. ************ Day Six 29 November 2007 ************ Scheduled for 9 am, proceedings begin at 9:05 in a smaller courtroom. There are the usual security checks with x-ray equipment, etc. but no incidents. The other courtrooms in Mannheim Court House do not carry out such security checks, but this one is used to conduct trials for violent crimes, grievous bodily harm, drugs, etc. Eight policemen are present along with three Staschu (political police, today’s counterpart of the old Stasi from DDR days) and one bailiff. Two police vehicles are parked in front of the courthouse. The court is present in its usual composition: Judge Glenz, District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia Stolz with Attorney Bock as well as her court appointed lawyer. Horst Mahler is present as visitor. There is one very young female reporter from the dpa (Deutsche Presse-Agentur.) The media are boycotting the trial except for passing on politically correct clichés such as “Rightwing Extremist,” “Holocaust Denier,” “Neo-Nazi,” etc. There are also several very young female observers, perhaps students or apprentices. In addition there are around 30 visitors who come and go throughout the day. They are exasperated because the sound system is either out of order or turned off for the day, making it nearly impossible to hear what is said. In addition, Judge Glenz is speaking unusually softly, apparently on purpose. The visitors have to listen very attentively to hear anything at all, and for that reason the courtroom is remarkably quiet. The proceedings begin with a brief dispute between Sylvia and Judge Glenz over his most recent ruling. He tells her that he sees no reason to change his decision. Attorney Bock contradicts him, pointing out in detail that he is constantly interrupting Sylvia and refusing to allow her to speak, which is unworthy of a court in a lawful society. At 9:10 the Court recesses to confer and resumes at 9:40. Previous to this, Sylvia made a motion that she be reimbursed for travel expenses, since she no longer has a source of income. The Court’s decision: Nein! Sylvia then points out that the Court is doing everything it can to shut her up. She remarks that harboring doubts about “Holocaust” has become a thought crime in Germany. She again alludes to the never-ending foreign occupation and domination and observes that today the Jews rule all nations everywhere through their vassals. Racial mixing, which they promote for everyone except themselves, means the extinction of European ethnicity, while phony Jewish “democracy” and their perverted version of “human rights” (except for freedom of speech and opinion) result in bondage and Jewish rule: they are in fact Jewish inventions. Sylvia points out that in every nation, the Jews have created a state within a state, with non Jews serving as Nutzvieh (useful animals), as is well demonstrated in Jewish laws and writings. She again quotes extensively from Jewish writings in support of Jewish supremacism, then she reminds the Court that it would not allow her to read from the speech of Harold Pinter, a Jewish winner of the Nobel Prize and an outspoken critic of Zionist American imperialism. Perhaps the following is the passage that Sylvia wished to quote in order to illustrate the nature of Zionist American hegemony: I have said earlier that the United States is now totally frank about putting its cards on the table. That is the case. Its official declared policy is now defined as 'full spectrum dominance'. That is not my term, it is theirs. 'Full spectrum dominance' means control of land, sea, air and space and all attendant resources. The United States now occupies 702 military installations throughout the world in 132 countries, with the honorable exception of Sweden, of course. We don't quite know how they got there but they are there all right. The United States possesses 8,000 active and operational nuclear warheads. Two thousand are on hair trigger alert, ready to be launched with 15 minutes warning. It is developing new systems of nuclear force, known as bunker busters. The British, ever cooperative, are intending to replace their own nuclear missile, Trident. Who, I wonder, are they aiming at? Osama bin Laden? You? Me? Joe Dokes? China? Paris? Who knows? What we do know is that this infantile insanity - the possession and threatened use of nuclear weapons - is at the heart of present American political philosophy. We must remind ourselves that the United States is on a permanent military footing and shows no sign of relaxing it. Many thousands, if not millions, of people in the United States itself are demonstrably sickened, shamed and angered by their government's actions, but as things stand they are not a coherent political force - yet. But the anxiety, uncertainty and fear, which we can see growing daily in the United States, is unlikely to diminish. Sylvia then moves on to ask a question that also puzzles her supporters: if the Court is so intent on expediting proceedings and avoiding her “circumlocutions”, why did it set aside 20 days on the court calendar for this show trial? Judge Glenz then reprimands Sylvia, saying that her presentation does not respond to the disapproval expressed by the Court. She denies this and reminds the Court that this is the 3rd day of her defense presentation, therefore she cannot be interrupted and her testimony cannot be shortened or abrogated. She says it has become obvious that the honorable presiding judge is not concerned about the length of her presentation, but rather its contents. Judge Glenz allows her to continue. She points out that people have a right to know what the expression “human rights” means to the Jews: namely the total plundering of non Jews and the imposition of Talmudic supremacism. At 9:46 Judge Glenz again interrupts Sylvia and announces that he is now imposing a time limit on her presentations: he definitively and conclusively forbids her to continue speaking. She ignores his ultimatum and continues introducing exhibits regarding the recent decision of the Spanish High Court that decriminalizes dissenting opinions on “Holocaust.” She points out that the Spanish decision is posted on the Internet for all to read, and suggests that her exhibits will help the Mannheim District Court reach a proper verdict. Sylvia and Attorney Bock both rebuke the court for constantly retreating to chambers. It does not have to recess for a conference; the judges can discuss the matter in the courtroom. They demand an open and proper ruling by the judges. Since Sylvia is no longer allowed to give oral testimony, but only to submit written documents, the attendant judge on the right of Judge Glenz asks Sylvia what sort of supporting (individual) documents she wishes to submit. Sylvia then hands over two large files of copies as well as two packets containing copies of Germar Rudolf’s “Lectures on the Holocaust” [posted on the Internet at: <www.vho.org/GB/Books/loth/#download>]. The Court then recesses from 10:30 until 11.07. After recess the Court announces that Sylvia will be limited in her defense to two hours, which may be extended at the pleasure of the Court. Judge Glenz then gives an oral summarization of Sylvia’s testimony, mentioning Jewish domination of Germany; “Holocaust” and the reasons why she doubts its authenticity; forensic evidence that “Holocaust” could not have occurred as officially promulgated; “OMF” and the foundation of Germany’s present Basic Law; the Talmudic assumption that only Jews are human and non Jews are mere animals; and the function of the United Nations in eliminating national characteristics, with the result that today’s young Germans have been brainwashed into no longer wanting to be German. At 11:26 Judge Glenz finishes reading the Court’s “muzzle” ruling and has copies distributed to the individual members. Concerning Sylvia’s motion for compensation for travel expenses now that she has no source of income, the judge remarks that she must fill out applications and submit documentations for expenses. Sylvia now points out to the Court that she is faced with an entirely new situation, since she has been limited to two hours in which to present her case. This is an impossible task, as the Court well knows. Attorney Bock makes the motion that proceedings be discontinued and the Court adjourned for the day, since the Defense needs time to consult and reorganize. Judge Glenz totally ignores this motion! At 11:33 he orders a two hour recess for the noonday meal. After that, events move very rapidly. After lunch, Judge Glenz informs Sylvia that compensation for travel expenses is available only for destitute persons. She will have to fill out a written application and provide documentation. Sylvia then complains about the Court’s “muzzle order” restricting her presentation to two hours. She points out that placing an arbitrary time limit on her argumentation, after having set aside 20 days for her trial, is an unjust and illegal denial of her right to present her case, it is in fact a Talmudic denial of her right to defend herself. She observes that Judge Glenz is living in the Judaic world, whereas she lives in the German world. She observes that in the Mannheim court the District Attorney does not have to lift a finger in order to gain convictions, since the judges conduct the prosecution. It is the same situation that prevailed in the Allied military tribunal in Nuremberg, in which the American Judge Jackson refused to allow Hermann Goering to speak. She defiantly announces that, since two hours are totally inadequate for the presentation of her defense, she grants these two hours to the Right Honorable Presiding Judge to use as he sees fit! At 1:42 pm the Court again recesses for 5 minutes to confer, then announces the end of proceedings for the day. Sylvia’s trial will continue on Tuesday, December 4th at 9:00 am, at which time, in accordance with Section 249 of the Penal Code, it will take evidence in Selbstleseverfahren (procedure of reading into the official public court record, since German courts do not keep complete records of proceedings.) These witnesses will be called: Presiding Judge Meinerzhagen, the specialist in “Holocaust Denial” who conducted Ernst Zündel’s trial; also a female judge from Berlin who presided over a case in which Sylvia represented the defense. ************ Some observations by your reporter: During today’s proceedings it became very clear that Judge Glenz is “pulling out all the stops” in order to terminate this trial as quickly as possible. The brief mention in the issue of 30 November of Manheimer Morgen, on page 3, is representative of the coverage of Sylvia’s trial in Germany’s “poodle press:” Stolz Trial to Move Forward** The trial of Sylvia Stolz in Mannheim District Court for Incitement of the Masses will now continue with normal witness testimony. On the fifth trial day, Judge Rolf Glenz repeatedly warned the accused to restrict her testimony to the points of her indictment. Yesterday Stolz, an attorney who has defended several Rightwing Extremists, continued repeating the Holocaust Lie, however. Judge Glenz finally limited her testimony to two hours, which Stolz then refused to accept. Notice that I wrote this report today based on descriptions by a friend who attended the trial, to whom I am very grateful. As I mentioned previously, I myself was unable to attend this session. I returned last night shortly before 12 pm from the Deutsches Haus in Erzgebirge to find 240 messages in my computer, in addition to this report. 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.“ Thanks! Source: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEG...rmanScene2.htm