Begin forwarded message:
Update In Sylvia Stolz's Suit for Readmission to Bar
DAS DEUTSCHE REICH IST WEDER LINKS NOCH RECHTS, ES STEHT DENEN OFFEN, DIE DAS GUTE, WAHRE SCHÖNE ZUM ZIEL HABEN... WER UNS BEKÄMPFT UND VERTEUFELT, KENNT ENTWEDER DIE TATSACHEN NICHT ODER KENNT DAS GUTE NICHT ODER KANN DAS GUTE NICHT ERTRAGEN... WER UNS BEKÄMPFT, BEKÄMPFT DEUTSCHLAND.
THE GERMAN REICH IS NEITHER LEFT NOR RIGHT, IT IS OPEN TO EVERYONE WHO STRIVES FOR THE GOOD, THE TRUE AND THE BEAUTIFUL... WHOEVER FIGHTS AND DEMONIZES US EITHER DOES NOT KNOW THE FACTS OR IS IGNORANT OF THE GOOD OR CANNOT TOLERATE THE GOOD... WHOEVER FIGHTS AGAINST US FIGHTS AGAINST GERMANY.
Excerpts from Sylvia Stolz's Suit for Readmission to the Bavarian Bar (Bay AGH II – 27/09)
Posted 17 August 2011
Translated by J M Damon
In her profession of attorney at law, Sylvia Stolz defended clients who were accused of denying the so-called "Holocaust," among them Ernst Zündel.
As any good lawyer would do, she defended her clients by submitting evidence that was intended to create doubt about the charges against them.
In the case of German dissidents, this means creating doubt about official historiography as well as the so-called "Manifest Obviousness" of the so-called "Holocaust."
In her defense of Zündel Sylvia also pointed out that since 1945, Germany has been under foreign domination, specifically that of her victorious enemies.
Even when she was denied permission to speak and threatened with criminal charges, she persisted in reading and documenting evidentiary motions that would exonerate her client.
Attorney Stolz was sentenced to three years and three months imprisonment for 1) "Denial" of "Holocaust;" 2) Disparagement of the State; 3) Incitement of the Masses; 4) Attempted Evasion of Punishment and 5) Attempted Coercion.
In January 2008 she was placed under arrest while in the courtroom.
On appeal, her conviction for coercion was overturned for lack of evidence, through a petition for clarification by one of the lay judges.
Although she had no previous convictions, Attorney Stolz was also disbarred from practicing law for five years.
Her incarceration ended in April 2011 and she is now suing for readmission to the Bavarian Bar.
Judge Meinerzhagen of Mannheim District Court, who presided over the trial of Ernst Zündel, represented the opinion that Attorney Stolz's strategy for dealing with the charge of "Denial of Holocaust" is punishable, irrelevant and inapplicable to legal defense, and he found Attorney Stolz's defense "disruptive."
He allowed no evidence that would conflict with the official version of "Holocaust," giving notice that he would tolerate no "criminal" expressions during open proceedings and would decisively reject any attempt at defense that approached from that direction.
He applied his strategy in such a way as to deny Defense Attorney Stolz permission to argue her motions and present her positions orally.
Under the provisions of Section 257a of the Penal Code, he required her to present all motions and challenges in written form only, constantly forbidding her to speak in defense of her client.
When she did not submit to his instructions, which were illegal in her opinion, he barred her from defending her client.
Since the ruling by Karlsruhe Superior District Court on her expulsion from the trial had not yet legally taken effect (the deadline for filing an objection had not passed and the expulsion was illegal in her opinion), Attorney Stolz (a very courageous five-foot –two-inches) refused to leave the defense bench on the judge's command.
Meinerzhagen then ordered the police to remove her from the courtroom.
Sylvia informed the police officers that they would have to carry her out of the courtroom physically, which they did.
About ten months after this, in February 2007, Attorney Stolz's client Ernst Zündel was sentenced to 5 years for "Denying Holocaust."
For several years he had maintained an Internet site dedicated to debating the subject.
Throughout Sylvia's own trial in Mannheim District Court, all her statements and evidentiary motions were disallowed on grounds that they were irrelevant and constituted "RECHTSMIßBRAUCH" (abuse of the law.)
This is because they were "designed to cast doubts on Holocaust."
At her sentencing, the Court devoted a great deal of effort to denouncing her WELTBILD (world view.)
Even in the first trial, the Court admitted that it "...saw itself obliged to restrict almost all the defendant's rights to a defense."
Thus Sylvia was not allowed to state her opinions or question Meinerzhagen when he was called as witness.
The reasons the Court gave were her "habit of abusing the law" as well as "spreading revisionist theses." (See Sentence of Mannheim District Court, 14 January 2008, page 43, file AZ 4 KLs 503 Js 2306/)
The Mannheim sentence includes no referenced incidents of "Denial" of the so-called "Holocaust," that is, no findings concerning state organized mass murder of Jews during the Third Reich.
It includes no determinations of place of the alleged crime or crimes, methods of the alleged crimes, numbers of victims of the alleged crimes, times of the alleged crimes or any forensic evidence that mass murders were committed by Germans.
There are no court determinations about eyewitness testimony or documents, not even reference to other sentences and trials.
The Mannheim sentence does not determine that "Holocaust" is "manifestly obvious" and it does not take any specific historical works into consideration.
Insofar as no place of crime is indicated by the Court at which mass murder is alleged to have taken place and no evidence is provided that such a crime actually took place, it is not possible under the law to make a conclusive finding that mass murder was committed.
Without a factual determination of the referenced crime, sentencing is likewise not possible under the law.
The Mannheim verdict states that it was the intent of the accused to proselytize the court with her "purported truth" in hopes of instilling doubts about "Holocaust" and its "Manifest Obviousness" in a judge.
However, according to the Court, her contradicting the "systematic extermination of Jews" was able to convince the Court of nothing except her "hostile ignorance of the obvious evidence." (Page 11, File AZ: 1 AnwG 25/2007.)
The verdict of the Attorney's Court in Munich, which excluded her from the bar on15 September 2009, states that it is unacceptable for her to "express proscribed opinions in the courtroom." (Page 11 of File AZ 1 AnwG 25/2007.)
During the attorney appellate proceedings, however, the following statements were also taken into evidence:
Dr. Martin Broszat of the Institute for Modern History in Munich (who later became director of that institute) stated in 1960: "Neither in Dachau nor Bergen-Belsen nor Buchenwald were Jews or any other prisoners gassed." (DIE ZEIT, 19 August 1960, page 16)
Sylvia now asks which thesis is "manifestly obvious" at present, in the view of the Court?
Is it "manifestly obvious" that mass gassings took place in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald?
Or is it "manifestly obvious" that mass gassings did not take place in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald?
Both theses cannot be "manifestly obvious."
Prof. Gerhard Jagschitz, distinguished historian, gave the following expert testimony in Vienna on 10 January 1991:
"Furthermore, several acquittals in landmark trials in national and international courts have reinforced substantial doubts about basic questions and issues.
These acquittals were based on expert opinion.
The mere extrapolation of verdicts and reference to stereotypical knowledge of exterminations of Jews by gas in Concentration Camp Auschwitz no longer suffices as a basis for verdicts in a society that maintains a democratic concern for justice."
Walter Lip Mann, Chief of US Propaganda under President Wilson, is quoted in DIE WELT for 20 November 1982 as follows:
"...The only condition that can be seen as a guarantee of victory is the defeated being subjected to a re-education program.
Only when the war propaganda of the victors is entered into the history books of the vanquished, and is also believed by succeeding generations, only then will our reeducation have succeeded."
The Third Senate of the Bavarian Attorneys' Court rejected Attorney Stolz's submission of evidentiary motions regarding "Holocaust" with the statement that it has "no doubts about the Manifest Obviousness of 'Holocaust' in view of the generally available literature, photographs and oral evidence known to it." (Ruling of 14 January 2011.)
Ironically, the Defense motion to determine on what materials the Senate bases its certainty about the "Manifest Obviousness" of "Holocaust" are based, were rejected on ["Catch-22"] grounds of the "Manifest Obviousness" of "Holocaust" as well as "National Socialist Atrocities Against Jews," with sweeping reference to "newspapers, radio, television, reference books and history books." (Ruling of 8 February 2011.)
Sylvia now points out that an "obviously false interpretation of history" or a "displeasing interpretation of the history of this era," particularly in the sense of a contradiction relating to an event (in contrast to endorsement), is in any case not a proper reason for limiting freedom of opinion, according to the German Constitutional Court (4 November 2009, BvR2150/08, Abs.Nr.77, 82)
The circumstance that the so-called "Holocaust" is designated a "unique crime" makes its questioning neither an approval nor a legally protected interest. (see the above BverfGE Abs.Nr.68)
And neither the "GESCHICHTSGEPRÄGTE IDENTITÄT" ("historically determined identity") of the Federal Republic nor the "unique constellation" (Abs. Nr. 66) can be used to make arbitrariness into law.
Patrick Bahners, who became editor of the Feuilleton section of the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, expressed the following concerning the trial of "Holocaust Denier" Günter Deckert:
"If Deckert's concept of 'Holocaust' is correct, then the Federal Republic of Germany was founded on a lie.
Every presidential speech, every moment of silence, every history book has been a lie.
By denying the extermination of Jews Deckert is challenging the legitimacy of the Federal Republic." FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG, 15 August 1995.
"If radical Revisionism is correct in its allegation that a 'Holocaust' in the sense of extensive and systematic measures for extermination in the highest levels of government did not take place, then I would have to make the following confession:
National Socialism was not a bizarre distortion of Bolshevism.
Rather, it merely lead the struggle for Germany's survival of Germany when it was forced on the defensive worldwide." Prof. Ernst, Nolte, Distinguished Historian (FEINDLICHE NÄHE, Herbig, Munich, 1998, pages 74 – 79)
Here's freedom to him who would speak,
Here's freedom to him who would write;
For there's none ever feared that the truth should be heard,
Save him whom the truth would indict!
ROBERT BURNS (1759–96)
Messages in this topic (1)