Love for Life

TRANSLATION INTO ENGLISH:
DATE POSTED: JANUARY 18, 2008

Sylvia Stolz - GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL

Mannheim, Germany, November 2007 - January 2008

Reported by Günter Deckert Translated by James M. Damon

Day 15 of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz

In Mannheim Kangaroo Court, 14 January 2008

Sylvia’s Verdict, Sentencing and Arrest

Hail Sylvia!

In case the Court is unwilling to suspend proceedings, Attorney Bock moves that he be released from his duty to defend Sylvia, saying he does not want to serve as a fig leaf for such a disgraceful and dishonorable show trial.

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

“In the Name of the People!” (Yes, But Which People?)

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

Introduction: Several hours have now passed, but I still cannot believe what I witnessed between 1 and 2 O’clock this afternoon. Perhaps I am a bit slow to catch on; but I could never have anticipated, even in my wildest dreams, what those three BRDDR judges did to Sylvia. When I arrived in Mannheim before 9 am I did notice that there was a larger than usual number of police vehicles (3 paddy wagons) parked in front of the courthouse. However, I assumed this was because of the larger than usual crowd of visitors and reporters. As it turned out, the reason for the massive show of force was something quite different. It was the spectacular arrest of Attorney Sylvia Stolz immediately upon the reading of the verdict, which was staged as a “photo op” for maximum coverage by the “poodle media.”

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

THE DAY’S EVENTS: Today the usual “security” fun and games begins early on account of the crowd and is carried out without incident. Courtroom Number One, the big one, is filled to overflowing with some visitors having to wait outside. Horst Mahler is in he audience as well as Andreas from Berlin and a large number from far away, including Claude from Paris, our French translator. There are at least a dozen representatives of the mainstream media who have ignored Sylvia’s trial, except for publicizing government commentary. Rhein-Nekar TV is among those present today. The only familiar faces are “Gorilla” of BILD, the blonde from dpa (Deutsche Presse Agentur), Mack from Mannheim Morgen and someone named Willenberg, an independent journalist who covered the last week of the trial. There are 6 “Staschu” [Staatschutz = political police: the updated equivalent of the old “Stasi” (Staatsicherheit) of DDR days] as well as 3 armed bailiffs and 8 uniformed police agents in the courtroom, more armed agents and more intimidation than usual. Several apprentice jurists or interns are also present. They are students preparing for their second state exam, sitting in the section reserved for official reporters. Sylvia is here with her two attorneys, as is District Attorney Grossmannn.

Scheduled to begin at 1:00, the session gets underway at 1:04 as judges Glenz, Bock and Lindeman come marching in. Glenz immediately blurts out “In the Name of the People...”

[Which “people” does he have in mind? I doubt very seriously that these BRDDR functionaries would get away with sending Attorney Sylvia Stolz to prison and disbar her from practicing law if the German people had anything to say about it! Incidentally, I read on Friday that Judge Schwab, who presided over the trial of Germar Rudolf, sentenced a REAL criminal to three years in prison for raping a seven-year-old child!]

Sylvia protests against Judge Glenz’s bullying and makes one last attempt to submit an evidentiary motion. Glenz, who did not allow a single evidentiary motion during the whole trial, responds with his inevitable NEIN! For some time Sylvia continues protesting while Glenz continues threatening, both speaking at the same time. Sylvia’s attorney Bock does not give the final address, as was agreed last session. Everyone has to stand up as Glenz reads the verdict and the sentence. Sylvia is found guilty of coercion, disparagement of the state, and illegally consulting with Attorney Horst Mahler. The Court sits down and every else is allowed to sit as well. Glenz reads through his Begründung (grounds or basis) for the sentencing, beginning with Sylvia’s disbarment. For the regular visitors there is nothing new in this. The verdict and sentence have been obvious from the beginning, from Glenz’s rejecting all of Sylvia’s motions. Glenz recites his official fairy tale about “historically proven state organized genocide of Jews,” which was “proven” by the victors of World War II during the Nuremberg show trials. Next, he devotes considerable time to condemning “false and unsubstantiated Revisionist historiography,” the “Revisionist conception of mankind,” and Revisionists themselves. Glenz says that Revisionists hide, omit, lie and even deny “Holocaust.”

He says they call it a lie made up by Jews. Then he takes shelter under the umbrella of Section 130 of the BRDDR Penal Code, the source of his despotic powers. Section 130 reads as follows:

[Section 130 Incitement of the Masses

Any person who, in a manner likely to disturb the public peace, assails the human dignity of others in that he

1. provokes hatred against sections of the population;

2. calls for the commission of acts of violence or the taking of arbitrary measures against the; or

3. vilifies, maliciously disparages or defames them;

shall be liable to imprisonment of not less than three months or more than five years.]

Glenz charges that Revisionists are not willing to accept and acknowledge official Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness.) Then he says their “perverted picture of mankind” ultimately leads even to questioning the legitimacy of the BRDDR!

[Here we have it – “Das ist des Pudels Kern!” as Faust would say -- the question of the legitimacy of the present regime. The political elite has always known the BRDDR lacks legitimacy, and now this realization is spreading throughout the general population.]

Then Glenz tries to compare Auschwitz and Dresden, saying there is no more rubble and the Frauenkirche has been rebuilt, but he apparently loses his train of thought. He proudly emphasizes that he has consistently forbidden the introduction of documentary, empirical, or forensic evidence in Sylvia’s trial. He says that Sylvia, a defender of Revisionists, deliberately acted in a disruptive manner. In fact, she continues to do so, and to deny “Holocaust” as well.

Glenz says there is a danger she will continue her criminal activities. He says that German society can be protected only if she is immediately disbarred.

Then Judge Glenz talks about the legal bases for his verdict. Several counts of her indictment did not come under Section 130, such as collaborating with Horst Mahler, disparaging state organizations and functions with expressions such “Show Trial” and “Talmudic Inquisition,” and by comparing this trial to the Nuremberg Military Tribunal. “Coercion,” another of the counts that did not come under Section 130, refers to Sylvia’s admonition that under international law the BRDDR is not a legitimate government, since the victors of World War II never signed a peace treaty with Germany. The puppet governments they imposed were never approved by plebiscite, therefore the laws of the Reich are still the legitimate government, even though the Reich in unable to enforce its laws at present. Sylvia’s reference to Feindbegünstigung (Aid and Comfort to the Enemy) presumably refers to Laws 90a and b of Reichsgrundgesetz (Basic Laws of the Reich.)

Glenz announces that Sylvia is exonerated on the count of filing an illegal complaint following her forcible ejection from the Zündel trial, since “culpability” could not be confirmed. Again, there is nothing new here. Glenz says the Court has taken into consideration Sylvia’s “deficient sense of legal accountability” that resulted from Fremdsteuerung (manipulation) by Horst Mahler. He opines that she does indeed evince Sektiererverhalten (sectarian conduct,) but says that this conduct is not delusional since she is able to go about her daily tasks unassisted. He says the Court considered the Sylvia has no previous convictions, but then calls her stubborn willful. He says that in the Zündel and Reinecke trials she deliberately exceeded limitations placed on the Defense by the High Court, as was demonstrated in the Reinecke trial before Potsdam County Court. He says the total composite sentence, derived from a basis of two years incarceration plus corresponding fines, amounts to a total of three and a half years incarceration. Glenz accompanies this announcement with customary legalistic obfuscation. He says that no comprehensive appeal is possible to the High Court. The only possibility is consideration of possible procedural errors, and the appeal must be submitted within a week. After preparation of the written verdict, one month will be allowed for the grounds of appeal.

Then comes the shocker: Glenz reads a warrant for Sylvia’s immediate Untersuchungshaft (investigatory arrest) and the cops haul her off! Suddenly it becomes clear why there are so many unformed cops at the courthouse today. While the media were present, the government wants to intimidate the public with the spectacle of another wrong thinking Revisionist being hauled off to prison. It’s like having Germar Rudolf hauled in and out of court in chains, during his trial.

The Glenz’s ostensible reasons for “busting” Sylvia in court are as follows.

1. Her disbarment leaves her without a source of income. Perhaps our benevolent BRDDR is afraid Sylvia would have to walk the streets, and this is its newest version of guaranteeing her existenzielle Grundsicherung (social welfare.) The government takes away her livelihood and locks her up and the taxpayer can support her in one of its ‘prison shelters” rather than a homeless shelter. When I was in Bruchsal Prison ten years ago, each prisoner was costing the taxpayer over 2500 Euros (around $5000) per month, and that amount has increased considerably. It would easily provide for four individual households.

2. Glenz rules that, in the second place, there is continuing danger to “Society” that Sylvia will continue her revisionist agitation. She herself has said she would do so. {For many years Sylvia has agitated for freedom of speech, open investigations of “Holocaust,” demand for a peace treaty with the victors of WWII, a convention to draw up a real German Constitution, etc. This must be avoided at all costs, because it would put the BRDDR out of business!}

3. Glenz says that in the third place, there is a real danger of Sylvia’s absconding, since she has no firm domestic ties. He says that Horst is just a companion, and he too is going back to jail for saying “Heil Hitler.” Furthermore there are still foreign countries that have not yet outlawed freedom of speech, whose citizens might assist Sylvia in continuing Revisionist activities. He specifically mentions Mrs. Ingrid Rimland Zündel in the US and Dr. Frederick Töben in Australia.

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

We assume that Sylvia will be taken to Heidelberg Prison, where her address will be: Oberer Fauler Pelz (JVA), (D) 69117 Heidelberg. Horst Mahler says he will keep us posted concerning new developments and Sylvia’s visiting privileges. As far as I know, Attorney Ludwig Bock will continue as her attorney.

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

ACHTUNG! - Warning to German Readers!

Do not allow your outrage to make you “pour your heart out” in expressing your indignation to the Glenz court. These high and mighty BRDDR judges have a very thin skin! They are easily offended, and they have draconian powers under the provisions of Section 130. An example of this is another upcoming trial in Mannheim Kangaroo Court. In addition to the trial of Attorney Jürgen Rieger of Hamburg, Mannheim KC is preparing to stage a “lesser trial” against a former airplane pilot who wrote an indignant letter to Judge Meinerzhagen a.k.a. “Doctor Nein.” Doctor Nein himself filed the complaint, and he wants to fine the indignant airplane pilot 5,000 Euros ($8500.)

The pilot is contesting Dr. Nein’s charges, so there is going to be another “Section 130” trial in April or May. This one will be in Mannheim County Kangaroo Court rather than Mannheim District Kangaroo Court. County courts have just one judge, and this one will presumably be Judge Nein. This time it will be possible for the pilot to appeal to District Kangaroo Court as well as other courts, which promises great fun for BRDDR judges and great expenses for BRDDR taxpayers. The rationale seems to be that, since the Deckert-Leuchter Trials of 1991–95, Mannheim has to maintain its preeminent position among kangaroo courts.

Günter Deckert - Weinheim an der Bergstraße den 14. January 2008

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

About Günter Deckert

Günter, born in Heidelberg in 1940, is a former secondary school instructor in English and French. In 1989, on basis of Berufsverbotsgesets (law forbidding employment of ex-convicts) he was denied his retirement benefits after being fired by Bad Württemberg School District. This was in clear violation of state pension guarantees. Consequently His retirement income is less than 1/3 of what his pension would be if it had not been illegally revoked. Günter was a member of Weinheim City Council affiliated with the NPD (National Party) from 1976 – 99 and a member of Weinheim County Council 1989 – 99.

On account of his conviction under Section 130 he was not allowed to run for political office until 2005. In 1976 he was declared an Honorary Citizen of Michigan City in the USA for his contributions to German American Friendship Committee, specifically in connection with student and youth exchanges. He was a participant on the Olympia trip of German Youth Athletics in Rome 1960 as Region Champion from North Baden. There is more information about Günter in Wikipedia, much of it unfortunately incorrect. A detailed curriculum vitae is available on request, in either German or English.

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

I wish to express my thanks to translators J. M. Damon in Austin, Texas and Claude Virieu in Paris for their generous contributions of time and effort. They have helped to break the “Conspiracy of Silence” of the mainstream German media, who either ignore “Holocaust” trials or restrict their reporting to politically correct commentary approved by the BRDDR. I wish to thank all those who, each in his own way, have contributed to the effort of publicizing the Stolz trial by posting my reports on their homepages and websites and printing them in newsletters and newspapers, so that the world can learn of the injustices performed on the stage of Mannheim Kangaroo Court.

Thanks to all my friends and sponsors, without whose encouragement and economic assistance I could not have reported on this trial!

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

Hail Sylvia!

A Personal Note about BRDDR Prisons: I am personally familiar, from the inside, with the prisons in Mannheim, Stuttgart, Heidelberg, Tübingen, Heimsheim bei Pforzheim, Asperg Prison Hospital near Ludwigsburg and especially Bruchsal. My familiarity with the System allows me to appreciate the ordeal and the predicament of Sylvia Stolz. I am speaking on behalf of many German patriots when I express my highest regards and sincere appreciation for Sylvia’s efforts. I hope and pray that she may continue to persevere, because the “System” will leave no stone unturned in its attempt to break her. I hope and pray that she will be able to return to our patriotic Revisionist community healthy and undaunted in body and spirit.

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

A Final Note

Please note that my reports 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.“

G.D.

_______________________________________

Holocaust revisionist's lawyer jailed
Tue, 15 Jan 2008 11:18:35

A German court has sentenced the former lawyer of Ernst Zündel to three and a half years in prison for denying the Holocaust herself.
In addition to 3 1/2 years in prison, Sylvia Stolz has also been banned by the court from practicing law for five years.
During the trial of the Holocaust revisionist scholar, Ernst Zündel , Stolz called the Holocaust "the biggest lie in world history".
Stolz has reportedly read a newspaper article to the court about the appearance of world renowned Israeli artist, Gilad Atzmon in Bochum.
In a public statement, Atzmon is quoted as having said that the written history of the Second World War and the Holocaust are a "complete forgery, initiated by Americans and Zionists".
Stolz represented 67-year-old Zündel in his first trial in Germany and was banned from the court for allegedly trying to sabotage the proceedings.
Zündel's second trial ended in February, 2007 with his conviction for denying the Holocaust and was sentenced to the maximum five years in prison.
MT/BGH http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=38848&sectionid=351020604

Holocaust-Leugnung: Sylvia Stolz noch im Gerichtssaal festgenommen und abgeführt

Ein letzter Hitlergruß

Von unserem Redaktionsmitglied Steffen Mack

http://www.morgenweb.de/nachrichten/politik/20080115_srv0000002020752.ht...

Mannheim. Es sollte ihr letzter großer Auftritt sein. In blauem Kostüm und hohen Stiefeln sitzt Sylvia Stolz vor dem Mannheimer Landgericht. Rund 100 Zuschauer sind zur Urteilsverkündung gekommen, die meisten offenkundig rechtsextremistischer Gesinnung. Eine dreiviertel Stunde später wird sich Stolz per Hitlergruß von ihnen verabschieden. Aber bis dahin ist ihr selbstgefälliges Lächeln verschwunden.

Dieser letzte Verhandlungstag beginnt so, wie die meisten davor verlaufen sind. Als der Vorsitzende Richter Rolf Glenz das Wort ergreift, quakt die Angeklagte dazwischen, will wieder Anträge stellen. Eine Weile reden beide gleichzeitig. Stolz schweigt erst, als Glenz ihr droht, sie aus dem Saal entfernen zu lassen.

Nicht zurechnungsfähig?

Dabei dürfte Stolz auch das Urteil die Sprache verschlagen haben: dreieinhalb Jahre Haft plus fünfjähriges Berufsverbot als Rechtsanwältin. Stolz zeige "fanatischen Hass gegen alles Jüdische", bestreite den millionenfachen Mord während der NS-Zeit wider besseres Wissen, volksverhetzende Äußerungen seien ihr "ein wesensbestimmender Grundreflex", so Glenz. Als Verteidigerin des Holocaust-Leugners Ernst Zündel habe sie Richtern und Schöffen am Mannheimer Landgericht mit der Todesstrafe gedroht - wegen "Feindbegünstigung" gemäß den laut Stolz nach wie vor gültigen Gesetzen des Dritten Reiches.

Glenz erinnert an Stolz' Schlußwort, in dem sie Adolf Hitler einen "Erlöser" nannte und mit Jesus Christus verglich. Wer so rede, gelte im landläufigen Sinne als "nicht zurechnungsfähig". Das Gericht interessierten indes nur strafrechtliche Kategorien. Ansatzpunkte für psychische Störungen oder "krankhafte seelische Abartigkeit" oder Ähnliches habe man nicht gefunden.

Mit gefalteten Händen lauscht Stolz zurückgelehnt der Urteilsverkündung. Ab und an ruft sie etwas dazwischen. Glenz verhaspelt sich ein paar Mal. Seine ruhige, bedächtige Art der Prozeßführung wurde von dieser Angeklagten äußerst strapaziert. Obwohl Stolz die Vorwürfe gegen sie im Prinzip nie bestritt, waren 15 Verhandlungstage nötig. Das sei "allein ihre Schuld", betont Glenz. Die 44-Jährige habe alles getan, das Verfahren zu sabotieren.

Überraschend Untersuchungshaft

Das Strafmaß bleibt sechs Monate unter den von der Anklage geforderten vier Jahren. Doch verhängt der Vorsitzende Richter - von Staatsanwalt Andreas Grossmann gar nicht beantragt - sofortige Untersuchungshaft wegen Fluchtgefahr. Zwar habe Stolz wiederholt erklärt, für ihre Überzeugung bereitwillig ins Gefängnis zu gehen. Sie verfüge aber offensichtlich weder über "tragfähige familiäre Verbindungen" noch über berufliche Perspektiven. Überdies sei ja auch ihr Lebensgefährte Horst Mahler nach mehrfachem Hitlergruß zu einer (noch nicht rechtskräftigen Haftstrafe) verurteilt worden. Und bei der internationalen Vernetzung der Rechtsextremen nennt Glenz die Gefahr groß, daß sich das Paar ins Ausland absetze.

Einige jener "Netzwerker" zeigen sich vom Urteil ähnlich geschockt wie die umgehend abgeführte Stolz. Sie beschimpfen beim Hinausgehen Journalisten und andere Prozeßbeobachter. Polizisten drängen dazwischen, ein Mann wird vorläufig festgenommen und zurück in den Saal geschoben. Seine Frau hämmert von außen gegen Tür: "Ich hab' doch nicht einmal den Autoschlüssel . . ."

Eine ältere Dame fragt Grossmann empathisch: "Wo bringen Sie denn die Frau Stolz hin?" "Nach Heidelberg ins Untersuchungsgefängnis", antwortet der Staatsanwalt. Als die Rentnerin verlangt, er möge gefälligst Briefe von ihr an Stolz weiterleiten, schüttelt er den Kopf.

Es dürfte nicht lange dauern, bis Grossmann den nächsten Rechtsextremisten vor Gericht bringt. Das wird wohl der Hamburger NPD-Anwalt Jürgen Rieger sein. Den darf Stolz nicht verteidigen. Vielleicht grüßt sie ihn ja im Geiste mit dem rechten Arm durchs Gitterfenster.

Mannheim / Baden-Württemberg: 15.01.2008

Die ehemalige Zündel-Anwältin Sylvia Stolz soll laut Prozessbeobachter Günter Deckert gestern verhaftet und in die JVA Heidelberg verbracht worden sein.

Stolz wurde gestern im Landgericht Mannheim verhaftet, nachdem sie wegen Volksverhetzung, Verwenden von Kennzeichen u.a. zu einer Haftstrafe von dreieinhalb Jahren verurteilt worden ist. Der gegen die Dissidentin erlassene Haftbefehl umfaßt sieben Seiten und begründet die Untersuchungshaft aufgrund angeblicher Fluchtgefahr.

Unter Vertrauten erklärte Lebensgefährte Horst Mahler, daß man mit so einer Maßnahme gerechnet hätte und die Verurteilte daher auch schon alles Notwenige bei sich gehabt hätte.

Rechtsanwältin Sylvia Stolz wurde zu 3 1/2 Jahren Haft - mit fünfjährigem vorläufigen Berufsverbot - verurteilt und wurde noch im Gerichtssaal nach Verlesung des 7-seitigen Haftbefehls festgenommen.

Die Anzahl der Polizeifahrzeuge (3 Mannschaftswagen) vor dem Gerichtsgebäude gegenüber dem Mannheimer kurfürstlichen Schloß, heute Universität und Amtsgericht, erklärte ich mir mit dem größeren Andrang an Zuhörern wie Medienvertretern, denn es wurde ja das Urteil erwartet. Der Hauptgrund für den Polizeiaufmarsch war jedoch die geplante Verhaftung von Frau Stolz nach der Urteilsverkündung. (...)

Weitere Texte und ein Video von Sylvia Stolz unter:

http://de.altermedia.info/general/sylvia-stolz-jetzt-in-der-jva-heidelbe...

Google Blogs Alert for: Horst Mahler

Holocaust Denier's Lawyer Jailed
By Jeff(Jeff)
Stolz, the girlfriend of jailed right-wing extremist Horst Mahler, also was banned from working as an attorney for five years. The Mannheim court, explaining its sentence, said Stolz "lives in a make-believe world and wants to restore ...
Media News - http://haigmedia.blogspot.com/

Holocaust-Leugnung: Staatsanwaltschaft Cottbus prüft Verfahren

Stolz legt Revision vor dem Bundesgerichtshof ein

Mannheim. Die Cottbuser Staatsanwaltschaft prüft auch nach der Verurteilung der früheren Verteidigerin des Holocaust-Leugners Ernst Zündel weiterhin ein Ermittlungsverfahren gegen die Juristin Sylvia Stolz. Es gebe Hinweise darauf, daß sich die Anwältin in dem Cottbuser Verfahren gegen den Rechtsextremisten Horst Mahler 2007 der Volksverhetzung schuldig gemacht hat, sagte Oberstaatsanwalt Horst Nothbaum.

Nach antijüdischer Hetze hatte das Mannheimer Landgericht die bayerische Anwältin und Lebensgefährtin Mahlers am Montag für dreieinhalb Jahre ins Gefängnis geschickt. Es verurteilte die 44-Jährige wegen Volksverhetzung und sprach zudem ein fünfjähriges Berufsverbot aus. Die Juristin wurde noch im Gerichtssaal verhaftet. Das Urteil gegen die Anwältin habe keinen Einfluß auf die Prüfung des Ermittlungsverfahrens, sagte Nothbaum.

Die Juristin wird auch den Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) in Karlsruhe beschäftigen. Die Verteidigung der 44-Jährigen habe fristgerecht Revision gegen die Entscheidung des Landgerichts Mannheim eingelegt, sagte eine Gerichtssprecherin.

Zündel war im Februar 2007 zu fünf Jahren Haft verurteilt worden, die Höchststrafe für Volksverhetzung. In Cottbus verurteilte das Amtsgericht den 71 Jahre alten Mahler im November 2007 zu einer Haftstrafe von sechs Monaten ohne Bewährung. Mahler und die Staatsanwaltschaft legten dagegen Berufung ein, die nun geprüft wird. dpa

http://www.morgenweb.de/nachrichten/politik/20080117_srv0000002032414.ht...

Google News Alert for: Sylvia Stolz

Readers Disagree With Sentencing of Holocaust Denier
Deutsche Welle - Germany
Lawyer Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to three and a half years in prison on charges of inciting hatred for claiming the Holocaust was a lie. ...
See all stories on this topic

Google Blogs Alert for: Sylvia Stolz

Holocaust Denier's Lawyer Gets Prison
By CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD...(CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE NEW WORLD...)
Sylvia Stolz, who represented Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel at his trial, also was banned from practicing law for five years. During Zundel's trial, Stolz repeatedly disputed the Nazis' mass murder of Jews, called for hatred of the ...
CRIMES AND CORRUPTION OF THE... - http://mparent7777-2.blogspot.com/

German lawyer get 3.5 year jail time for denying Holohoax
Attorney receives 3 1/2 years Fire-ball attorney Sylvia Stolz was sentenced to 3 1/2 years in jail and banned from the practice of law for 5 years.
World War II - http://boards.historychannel.com/forum.jspa?forumID=101

Holocaust Denier's Lawyer Gets Prison
By Judy Cross
Sylvia Stolz, who represented Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel at his trial in Germany was convicted for denying the genocide herself and sentenced to 3 1/2 years in prison. She also may not practice law for 5 years. ...
Care2 News Network - Newly Submitted - http://www.care2.com/news/submitted/

Holocaust Denier's Lawyer Gets Prison
Sylvia Stolz, who represented Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel at his trial, also was banned from practicing law for five years.
WhatReallyHappened.com - http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

Kaminski: Control of your mind
By Stophypocrisy
The lawyer Sylvia Stolz, asks: ?Is it even possible to indict a defense attorney for taking his or her professional obligation seriously and doing everything possible to meet those obligations? If the answer to ...
- http://www.arsenalofhypocrisy.com/blog

Google Web Alert for: Sylvia Stolz

Sylvia Stolz — Blogs, Pictures, and more on WordPress
Blogs about: Sylvia Stolz ... Find other items tagged with “sylvia-stolz”:. Technorati Del.icio.us IceRocket · Terms of Service · Privacy · Support · Stats ...

Sylvia Stolz, German Lawyer of Ernst Zundel Sentenced To 3-1/2 ...
German lawyer of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel sentenced to 3 1/2 years (http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5hYvBg_Nf0Sn3xC_pimgT9HAXPc... ) Jan 14 ...

------------------------------------------------

Sylvia Stolz - GERMAN REICH-HOLOCAUST TRIAL

Mannheim, Germany, November 2007 - January 2008

Reported by Günter Deckert Translated by Prof James M Damon

Report in German - part only

*Days 1-3*

*Days 4 -6*

*Days 7-11*

*Days 12-14*

*Days 15-17*

*Judgment*

_____________________________________________

"Wer vor Gericht zieht und zur See fährt, braucht Gottes Hilfe.
Wer in einen politischen Prozeß hineingerät, dem kann auch Gott nicht helfen."

“He who goes to Court or to sea needs God’s help,

but not even God can help someone caught up in a political showtrial.”
- Dr. Siepmann, München

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

Day One

of the “Holocaust” Trial of Attorney Sylvia Stolz

before Mannheim District Court, Criminal Court No. 4

15 November 2007

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

Judge Glenz is presiding, accompanied by Attending Judges Dr. Bock and Dr. Lindenthal as well as Lay Judges Askani and Haaß. All are over 50 years of age except for one attending judge. Judge Glenz appears to be around 60 years old. Scheduled for 9:00, the trial gets under way at 9:52. The same security measures are in place as in the trials of Ernst Zündel and Germar Rudolf. Around 15 uniformed police agents are present. The courtroom is completely filled. There is less media coverage than in the Zündel and Rudolf trials. By and large the Poodle Press is ignoring this trial. If it mentions the trial at all, it is to heap politically correct abuse on “Rightwing Radical Extremists,” “Holocaust Deniers,” “Neo Nazis” etc. The press particularly enjoys ridiculing the close personal relationship that has developed between Horst Mahler, who is 71, and Sylvia Stolz, who is 44. 2 photographers are present as well as 1 cameraman, 8 journalists and the court illustrator. V. Zastrow is here for the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ), as is someone from the Mannheimer Morgen (MM). “Schreiber Mack” is here along with “The Gorilla” from BILD Rhein-Neckar as well as a blonde thirtysomething from dpa (Deutsche Presse-Agentur), leftwing rabblerouser K. Plastig from taz - Tageszeitung Berlin and a representative of Die Rheinpfalz in Ludwigshafen. In the courtroom there is also 1 bailiff along with four armed policemen. I do not see any familiar faces among the “Staschu” or Staatsschutz. In the former DDR, the genesis of this version of political police, the agents were called “Stasi,” which is an abbreviation for “Staatssicherheit.” Among the audience are Lady Michel R. and Peter R. of www.jailingopinions.com from England; Claude V. from France; Dr. Rigold Hennig, the publisher of Der Reichsboten, and Joachim Sch. As usual, Reichshauptstadt Berlin is represented by a large delegation.

Attorney Sylvia Stolz, affectionately known as “The German Joan of Arc” and “The Bavarian Spitfire” to her supporters, is accompanied by Horst Mahler. She is represented by Defense Attorney Ludwig Bock and a female pro bono in her mid 30s, who was appointed by the Court over Sylvia’s objections. We are familiar with this tactic from the Zündel trial. The Court wants to make sure that the proceedings do not result in a mistrial in case Attorney Bock departs (or is abucted) from the scene, as Sylvia was removed from the courtroom during the Zündel trial. Opposing Sylvia is District Attorney Andreas Grossmann accompanied by Head District Attorney Seiler.

When proceedings finally begin, the Court offers no reason for its tardiness. The first item is a procedural question concerning the status of Horst Mahler. Attorney Wingerter submits Mahler’s motion to participate in the trial, which is disallowed, although the Court allows him to remain in the room as an observer. Horst is then called to the stand as a witness. Since he has publicly announced that he and Silvia are engaged to be married, he is excused from having to testify against her.

Next, Grossmann and Seiler take turns reading the indictment. Most of the charges grew out of the trial of Ernst Zündel. They relate not only to evidentiary motions and trial strategy, but also to her testimony during appeal before Superior District Court Karlsruhe concerning here removal from the Zündel trial. Grossman and Seiler read 5 pages of this as well as complaints from a trial in Potsdam County Court. The indictment can be obtained from Frau Stolz for a small fee to cover expenses. Primarily the charges have to do with “Obstruction” of the Zündel trial as well as disrespectful remarks about “BRDDR.” (BRDDR is a reference to the German government that has often been used since the BRD merged with the DDR. Critics say the “BRDDR” combines the worst characteristics of both those Cold War governments.) Sylvia is also charged with “Insulting the Memory of the Deceased” (meaning Jews) and “Inciting the Masses” which is punishable under Article 130 of the Penal Code. On behalf of the BRDDR the District Attorneyis demanding that Sylvia be disbarred from practicing law, in addition to other punishments. Judge Glenz announces that the Court, while meeting in chambers, has accepted the indictment.

The Defense moves for a deferment and appeal to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (Germany’s version of the Supreme Court) in order to clarify the fundamental question of whether Section 130 of the Penal Code (Incitement of the Masses) is not unconstitutional. At issue is the widely held contention that Section 130 of the Penal Code is incompatible with Article 5 Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, which guarantees freedom of speech, opinion and research. The Bundesverfassungsgericht has never ruled on this burning question.

Bock’s motion is based on opinions expressed in an article by the former presiding judge of Hamburg District Court, Dr. G. Bertram, in Neue Juristische Wochenzeitung No. 21 / 2005. This article presents the issue very clearly.

It is encouraging that Dr. Bertram publicly applauded the recent decision of the Spanish Supreme Court concerning “Holocaust” prosecutions as they relate to freedom of opinion, which is guaranteed in the UN Charter. During my (Günter Deckert’s) trials in the 1990s, Judge Bertram had not yet expressed concerns about the constitutionality of Section 130. District Attorney Grossmann of course sees no reason to request such a ruling, and Sylvia’s pro bono lawyer appointed by the Court does not rise to support Attorney Bock’s motion.

At 10:35 the Court announces a pause as the judges retire to confer in chambers. Half the reporters leave the courtroom, including the “Gorilla” from BILD magazine and the blonde from dpa. The proceedings recommence at 1:00 O’clock. NEIN! is the Court’s response. As expected, the Court denies Bock’s motion, which it had anticipated. There will be no deferral and the Court will not ask the Budesgerichtshof to rule on the constitutionality of Section 130.

Mannheim District Court has conducted its own research into the matter. It has decided that legal doubts about the compatibility of Freedom of Opinion with prosecution for “Incitement of the Masses” are not adequate to justify asking for a ruling from a higher court.

At 1:13 Sylvia is allowed to begin presenting her Einlassung, or statement of position. She explains that the indictment is in reality an indictment of various branches of the OMF (Organisationsform einer Modalität der Fremdherrschaft -- Organizational Form of a Modality of Foreign Rule.) [OMF is a term formulated by the “Father of Basic Law” and expert on international law, Prof. Carlo Schmid, in 1948. For a detailed explanation of OMF visit this website: www.adelaideinstitute.org/Dissenters1/Mahler/Hennig_engl.htm

In 1948, when Washington executed its sudden about-face from Morgenthau to Marshall Plan, Prof. Schmid had to come up with a somewhat objective term for the new regime that would describe its collaborative nature without using terms such as “vassal state” or “puppet government.” Since the Basic Law has never been approved by plebiscite, it cannot accurately be called a “Constitution.”]

Sylvia announces that she does not intend to discuss in detail the points included in the indictment, which are by and large accurately presented. She says that she was merely doing her duty as attorney for the defense, namely to defend her client. She takes this duty seriously! She then describes the extreme procedures that characterized the Meinerzhagen court and demonstrates how that court was totally indifferent to historical reality. The Zündel trial was a show trial from beginning to end, as was the Rudolf trial; and the same is of course true of her present trial as well. She anticipates that her evidentiary motions will again be routinely denied as part of the same hollow legalistic ritual. They will be dismissed as “not pertinent, irrelevant, not part of these proceedings,” etc. In political trials, the verdict is decided before the trial begins. Sylvia says that in her In her presentation she wants to cover four pertinent areas:

1. Since the end of World War II, Germany has been ruled by foreign powers acting through the OMF;

2. More specifically, Germany has been ruled by Jewish occupiers in accordance with the rules laid down in the Talmud;

3. The historical record has been thoroughly falsified regarding World War II and the Third Reich; and

4. Under OMF law, the Third Reich can legally be depicted only as “evil” and “satanic” as though these were legal concepts.

Sylvia points out that German judicial perversions result from the violent imposition of a particular version of history. Anyone who expresses an alternate opinion is transformed into a recreant untouchable. Thus OPINION is the real target of the prosecutors in these “Holocaust” show trials. She urges the Court to consider how many things Germans are no longer allowed to say or think in Germany. Here she refers to an article by former SPIEGEL editor Fritjof Meyer in the journal Osteuropa (published by Prof. Rita Süßmuth of the Christian Democratic Party) in the issue for May 2002, pages 631-641. [This article is available as reprint from Durchblick-Schriften-Vesand, Bremen 2004, which also contains the rejection of the indictment against Horst Mahler and Günter Deckert that was drawn up by Stuttgart District Attorney on 28 May 2003. It is also available online at www.holocaust-history.org/auschwitz/fritjof-meyer/meyer-osteuropa.shtml, www.fritjof-meyer/meyer-replik-auf-piper.shtml and www.fritjof-meyer/index.shtm .

Sylvia points out that evidentiary motions relating what really happened are proscribed by German courts, which makes the task of the defense attorneys impossible. The official OMF consensus on “Holocaust” has been achieved through great judicial violence. She remarks that the German courts long ago abandoned their duty to establish truth by gathering material evidence themselves. However, the holy cow of Offenkundigkeit (Manifest Obviousness) cannot reign forever. This was established by the Petitions Committee of Federal Parliament in a position paper in 1994/95. The usual practice is the use of an arbitrary Ausnahmestrafrecht (exceptional penal code.) Here she is referring to the Bertram Beitrag (Bertrm Article) in the legal journal NJM. The Bundesgerichtshof Supreme Court has never released a detailed and final opinion on this matter.

She points out that the result of this has been the never-ending enemy occupation of Germany.

The Court recesses briefly between 2:15 and 2.30.

Sylvia then points out that she herself is now in a exposed position in an ominous historic locale. In this very courtroom Germar Rudolf, Ernst Zündel and Günter Deckert (your reporter) have all been convicted on account of their opinions. However, she is determined not to bend to threats and violence. She goes on to describe certain Ur-Erlebnisse (enlightening experiences or defining moments) that have occurred in her life. One of these was the pseudo documentary melodrama “Holocaust” made by the Jewish film producer Steven Spielberg in the 1970s, when she was young. Other similar Ur-Erlebnisse were events she experienced as an activist for animal rights during her student days and reading the book Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte by Ernst Gauss alias Germar Rudolf, published in Tübingen in 1994.(2) Sylvia then quotes extensively from this (around 20 pages), which prompts Judge Glenz to remark that her presentation has little to do with her indictment, and that extensive quotations contradict the purpose of her position statement.

He says that he wants this to be understood as an admonition. Frequent word exchanges occur before Sylvia is allowed to continue.

It becomes clear that Sylvia is growing tired, as she had to drive over the snow-covered Swabian Alps during the night, from Ebersberg east of Munich to Mannheim. After a short pause from 4:15 until 4:25, proceedings end for the day.

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

Reporter’s Comments on Day 1:

1. The presiding judge creates the impression of being thoughtful, composed and fatherly; yet leaves no doubt that he is steering directly in a given direction, namely a timely conclusion of the trial. In comparison to the agitated nervousness of Dr. Meinerzhagen in the Zündel trial or slick and polished Schwab in the Rudolf trial, he cuts a better figure.

2. For possession of 55 copies of this book I was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment without parole by the court in Weinheim (Judge Herbig) in 1995, which was upheld by the appeals court in Mannheim District Court (Judge Köhler.) The courts assumed that I must have read the book in its entirety and therefore must have known that it contained proscribed materials. However, at the time I placed the orders to buy the books they had not yet been proscribed, or even indexed! At the time of the appeal I was already incarcerated in Bruchsal, having been arrested at Frankfurt airport in November 1995 when I returned from abroad. The reason given for my arrest was “danger of fleeing the country!”

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

Day Two

16 November 2007

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

Scheduled to begin at 9 O’clock, proceedings get under way at 9:14.

The Court has the same composition except that District Attorney Grossmann is alone today. Both of Sylvia’s attorneys present as well as 1 representative of the press (Die Rheinpfalz) and 35 visitors. Resuming where she left off yesterday, Sylvia begins speaking on

National Socialist policies toward the Jews. She describes the various historic schools of this policy with emphasis on the writings of the Italian researcher Carlo Mattogno, showing that the concept of Sonderbehandlung (Special Treatment) referred to any and all treatment of internees that was not routine, just as its name implies. It clearly was not synonymous with “liquidation” since internment in luxury hotels was also called Sonderbehandlung.

Then she discusses at length the research by Udo Walendy on the subject of falsifications and photographic montages in his book Wahrheit für Deutschland (Truth for Germany) published by Vlotho/Weser in 1973. The German government’s attempts to suppress this work failed. She also discusses J. C. Ball’s expert analysis of wartime air photographs of Auschwitz, which disprove the allegations of smoking chimneys, mass murders, burnings of corpses in fire pits, etc. Ball’s works have never been acknowledged by “court historians” however. Sylvia also discusses the “Great Wendig” publications.(3) Then she moves on to the writings of the Frenchmen Paul Rassinier, who was himself interned at Buchenwald, and Prof. Robert Faurisson, who is famous/infamous for his challenge to the “Holocaust” Industry to “show me a single document!”

Sylvia points out that all the researchers she has mentioned are prominent witnesses who have presented their opinions in well-documented empirical arguments. She asks: How is it possible that defense attorneys are not allowed to defend their clients with evidentiary motions? This question arises constantly in “Holocaust” prosecutions. The impression recurs that criminal laws are misused to protect the official “Holocaust” concept, which leads the public to constantly ask: Who has an interest in the continuation and propagation of “Holocaust?” Every single OMF court has shied away from the central problem of the lack of material evidence for “Holocaust,” while material evidence is never allowed on behalf of the defense, even though such evidence is readily available.

Sylvia then returns to the above-mentioned book by Gauss/Rudolf as well as the book by F.P. Berg, Mordwaffe Dieselmotor (The Diesel Motor as Murder Weapon.) It is undeniable that evidentiary motions are disallowed by the German courts, and this is a great injustice.

She observes that Talmudic Justice rules the OMF courts. Here District Attorney Grossmann interrupts with the demand that this remark be included in the court record since it is another criminal opinion. The Court orders a ten-minute recess and announces that today’s proceedings will terminate at 2:15 pm.

Sylvia then reiterates her determination to fight for the truth and for the German nation. She points out that the above-mentioned illogicalities of official “Holocaust” historiography are indisputable and obvious to everyone. Why are those who ask obvious questions persecuted and imprisoned? Who profits from such tyranny and repression? Do Jews enjoy special privileges, or not? She points out tha citizens who ask logical questions are demonized, isolated, defamed, persecuted and imprisoned. In the recent case of Eva Hermann, official repression was again clearly demonstrated.

Sylvia observes that German citizens are not allowed to criticize atrocities committed by the Zionist settler state in Palestine because Jews were victims once upon a time. Citizens cannot draw comparisons or make accountings because to do so is “immoral.”

Sylvia then quotes the Jewish writer Martin Buber and his concept of truth as “forbidden fiction.” She points out that truth and objective reality are no longer considered in German courts. Judaism has succeeded in establishing its peculiar version of reality not just in Germany, but worldwide.

Throughout the German nation, Judaism has created for itself a moralistic power position that it exploits for financial extortion.

She then quotes from central passages of the Talmud to the effect that only Jews are human; all other denizens of the Earth are mere animals. She quotes numerous other Talmudic passages and comparisons. The Court recesses for lunch between 12:30 and 1:00, then resumes at 1:05 pm.

Continuing after lunch, Sylvia points out that Judaism strives for the dissolution of all other nationalities through racial and ethnic mixing. Here Judge Glenz again interrupts her with a question about specific relevance to her indictment. She replies that she is illustrating the extent of occupation and foreign rule over the German nation. Germans who expresses misgivings about this Überfremdung (foreign infiltration) are also prosecuted under Article 130. Then she briefly discusses the open letter that Host Mahler wrote to Daniel Goldhagen regarding his book “Hitler’s Willing Executioners.” Again Judge Grenzel interrupts and asked her to briefly summarize her individual points. He says that her statement of position has to relate to specific points in her indictment.

Sylvia replies that this is not a possibility and again explains her plan for presenting her statement. Attorney Bock points out that Sylvia’s statements are in fact within the framework of the indictment. Sylvia objects that her indictment is arbitrary and outrageous, demonstrating the absurdity of prosecuting citizens for expressing an opinion. How can opinions be prosecuted anyway? she asks. Why do the courts even consider such indictments?

She points out that she is attempting to force the Court to return to the quest for truth. The principal task of every court is to seek the truth, but these guidelines for justice are abandoned in “Holocaust” trials. Another example of this is the judicial creation of “tatbestandlichen Voraussetzung” (Court assumptions concerning the facts of the case) associated with Article 130, the OMF’s newest political innovation. As it is now 2:25, pm proceedings are discontinued until 9 am Monday, 19 November.

Reporter’s Comments on Day 2:

3. “Der Große Wendig – Richtigstellungen zur Zeitgeschichte” (The Great Wendig: Corrections to Contemporary History.” Presently in two volumes; Vol. 3 will appear in December. This is highly recommended – order from me and I will pay postage! Advice from your Reporter: It is a good idea to get the German Penal Code and study Sections 88 and 130 very carefully. The commentaries are very helpful. The commentary by Tröndle and Fischer is a relative bargain at around 75 Euros. Since I wish to purchase the latest edition, I am willing to sell my edition of 2001 for 35 Euros.

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

Day Three

19 November 2007

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

The trial resumes shortly after 9 am, with Court in the same composition as Friday: District Attorney Grossmann and Sylvia’s two attorneys. Today there is 1 representative of the press (Die Rheinpfalz) and two agents of “Staschu,” formerly known as “Stasi.”

There is no bailiff present and no policemen are in the courtroom.

Only 4 policemen are on duty in the courthouse, with no police cars in front. 25 observers are present.

At the start, Judge Glenz spends about 10 minutes reading some “legal guidelines,” about 4 pages long, which was to be expected after his admonitions on Friday. The issue is what Silvia should be allowed to say and how she should be allowed to say it. The Court is concerned that she might misuse the proceedings and turn it into a forum for her views on “Holocaust” specifically and Revisionism in general. Judge Glenz says the Court is considering imposing a time limit on her presentation. At 9:15 Judge Glenz orders a consultation recess of 1 hour for the sake of the Defense, and proceedings resume at 10:23.

At that time Judge Glenz asks Attorney Bock whether the recess for consultation has been adequate. Bock answers in the negative and says that the Defense intends to submit a written response, which will be completed by 9am Monday, 26 November. To the judge’s question of whether the response could be completed by the middle of this week, Bock responds that the Defense will try to complete it by that time but he cannot promise anything. With this, today’s proceedings conclude at 10:26 am. They will continue at 9am on Monday, 26 November.

{Page 5 of Report}

The anticipated dates for continuation of this trial are as follows.

In November: 26th, 27th and 29th - unfortunately your reporter has a prior engagement and will not be present on the 29th.

In December: 4th, 6th, 11th, 12th, 14th, 18th and 20th.

In January: 8th, 10th, 15th, 17th, 22nd, 24th and 29th.

Whether all these dates will be needed, or additional dates will be added, depends on factors as yet unknown. It is obvious that the Court wants to conclude this case as quickly as possible.

Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 19 Nov 2007

Günter Deckert

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

Note: These reports are neither a simultaneous transcription nor an exhaustive account of everything that was said. They reflect my personal impressions as I experienced them. I request that whoever refers to these reports, in whole or in part, include my name as the author.

Another request: Please consider that compiling these reports took four hours of my time. Driving to and from Mannheim took even longer and in addition, cost 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!

*Days 1-3*

*Days 4 -6*

*Days 7-11*

*Days 12-14*

*Days 15-17*

*Judgment*

Link to this page to continue reading this article: http://www.adelaideinstitute.org/LEGAL2006/GermanScene1.htm