Zundel Court - Day One: This, too, is history!
 

November 9, 2005

Horst Mahler and Ernst Zündel

More Updates on the Zundel Trial in Germany:

There hasn't yet been a formal write-up about yesterday. I will send it to you and post it just as soon as I get it. I am anxious to see a professional assessment of yet one more legendary day!

I have had a number of informal reports about what happened on the opening day of the trial. It seems to have been quite a circus. The media, by the way, has practically been wall-to-wall. It's been raining write-ups all day - very few of them fair, as per usual, and you can tell that they all write from the same old biased template.

But just to show you how unprofessional these media minions are: Someone spotted me in the court room, even though I was half a world away, named me "Irma" and apportioned some quotes to me that I had actually made - but here on my mountain in Tennessee, not in a courtroom in Mannheim!

What I said to an Associated Press reporter, in brief, was this:

1. How do I view the charges leveled against Ernst Zundel?

The charges against my husband are politically tainted and unworthy of a country that calls itself a democracy. They do not reflect German interests. They blatantly serve a nefarious political lobby that is wielding a weapon of mass deception called the Holocaust, hoping one more time to get away with it.

2. What results do I expect from the trial?

One cannot expect fairness from a trial where judicial notice -- Offenkundigkeit in German -- is written in legalese granite and cannot be challenged by forensic evidence and expert witnesses. If truth is not a defense - why even call it a trial? At least Joseph Stalin was honest.

As Ernst's wife, I fervently hope that truth be allowed as a defense. I still believe that it is possible, but I don't count on it.

Ingrid Rimland Zundel, Ed.D.

=====

I wrote this in such a way that even if only a portion was quoted, it could not be distorted. What this savvy netted me from this reporter, not too incidentally, was the label "fellow extremist" - I guess you cannot please 'em all! I wrote him back and told him not to be so naughty - I was so square, in fact, that in my spare time, I was fond of knitting socks!

Below are three informal reports on how the trial was perceived by Zundel friends:

1. A lady from Britain:

The line-up waiting for the court to open was reminiscent of the good old days during the first trials in Toronto, a long lengthy wait - and then not everyone got in. On the whole most were Zundel supporters with the exception of a large number of the media. When the lawyers and Ernst came in, the press photographers are given 10 minutes to take photos in the court room. This they did like jackals at the kill. The photographers then left. Ernst looked terrific, healthy and fit.

The Judge began by setting out his motion and supporting arguments to have, for various reasons, all of Ernst's lawyers either downgraded or removed from the case. His reasons, Horst Malher was no longer able to practice law because of his political views and his criticism of the system. He may have had his licence revoked at one time (of this I am not sure). Mahler refused to leave but the Judge threatened him with forcible removal and a one day jail sentence so he moved on his own accord to the spectators section. The Judge's complaints against Rieger were that Rieger was too political and too allied with his client's views. He would not be removed but could not be the "mandatory" lawyer (ie lead lawyer). Sylvia Stolz was also "too biased" and as well not qualified enough to be the "mandatory" lawyer. Dr. Herbert Schaller had suspect politics having had defended neo Nazis, but also he was too old. In Germany, every case requires a "mandatory lawyer" and any number of lawyers of choice. The "mandatory lawyer" must be one the Court approves of and apparantly, they do not approve of anyone that is there now.

What may happen is that the Court will appoint a lawyer who would be lead "mandatory" lawyer and he could then fire the lawyers of choice under him (as Rieger said, this is a possibility)

The whole morning was taken up with this. The lawyers (Stolz and Rieger) made some passionate and eloquent arguments, prompting rounds of exhuberant clapping from the spectators (can you imagine this happening in Canada?) After the noontime break, the lawyers, having just been demoted or removed, made arguments on behalf of Ernst, that the Judge should recuse himself because [Ernst] did not feel he could receive a fair trial under him. As one not really understanding the language, it all seemed rather farcical. The Judge wants to remove them - and now they want to remove the Judge.

The Judge really showed his prejudice up front, unlike the Canadian courts where there is a pretense of fairness and justice. I wonder which is better, but one thing that is better in Canada is that a lawyer can present his clients views without fear of prosecution, which is not the case in Germany, and this business of the court having to approve of the "mandatory" lawyer is scary.

After the court session we went to a hotel and met with the lawyers for a briefing. That was excellent. They explained that in Germany they had a ruling about the "obviousness of the Holocaust". That is like judicial notice, but to me a little more serious and entrenched. It actually dictates how the lawyers can mount their defense. Rieger explained that in Germany the Court must ascertain the truth of the case and with the Obviousness of the holocaust ruling, they have their truth. The lawyers want to ask for evidence of this truth, but can not do this for fear of prosecution themselves. This amounts to questioning the Holocaust [which is a crime in Germany!]

Apparantly, the law is that these arguments cannot be made public. A courtroom is a public place, so the arguments/questions cannot even be put forth. A possible solution is to ask that the public be excluded from the trial, but this means basically a secret trial, and one where justice will not be seen to be done. But in a private setting they can make their case.

Which is worse? It is a dilemma.

Ingrid, it is all very complicated, and with no understanding of the language, entirely reliant on other people's translations, I feel very vulnerable, but I have tried to tell it as I saw it and as I understand it. In a way, it was a culture-shocking day, kind of bizarre in many ways.

The hearing is remanded until next Tuesday and we are going to hang around til then. So I will keep you posted. Please excuse the mistakes. (...)

I also want to mention, how impressed I am with these very brave lawyers, especially Sylvia Stolz. She is so young, and I fear for her. She said in her arguments that the system is mentally sick. The media translated this as her saying the Judge was mentally sick. At least that is what a fellow traveller translated from the paper to me.

2. A new supporter from Ireland:

Hello Mrs. Zundel,

I went to Mannheim to witness the first day of the Zundel trial on Tuesday 8th of November. The proceedings were fascinating and worrying at the same time. What I witnessed that day was extraordinary and I am sure if such events happened in an Irish court, the papers would be full of it.

I do not speak very much German and so, much of what happened was translated to me by German people I met in the courthouse before the trial began. To begin with, the court was full of supporters. Unable to gain entry, other supporters waited outside. There were two television reporting teams outside the court - one from RTL, and the other I did not get to find out who they were working for. Everyone was passed though metal detection equipment and also frisked by the security people. There were eight security persons in the court during the proceedings. Five judges comprised the 'judging team'. This, I am told by German friends, is the norm in such cases.

In the first session of the morning, it seems one of Zundel's lawyers was dismissed by the judge for some reason that remains a mystery to me. Though perhaps others you will be in contact with will know the reasons. In any event, in responce to this the Zundel team essentially charged the judge saying that he must decide if he is fit to hear the trial as he seemed to express a bias against the defendant!

After a brief recess, the judge finally decided to hold over a decision on this matter untill next Tuesday the 15th of November. It is bizzare to me to see a judge having the right to decide whether he has a bias or not , but that is the situation. How free this arrogant judge is with Ernst's time! Another week in prison just so the pompous fool can 'decide' if he is biased or not?

Incidentally Mrs Zundel, whilst the members of Ernst's team were making their submissions, the judge looked as though he was asleep. His head was down and his eyes were closed. I know this sounds funny, but I am not joking. It is the absolute truth. The judge was either actually asleep or was making a very overt demonstration of his indifference to the submissions - this was the worrying part of the proceedings. At one point one of Ernst's supporters made a sudden loud noise as though to 'rouse' the judge. Rouse he did and fixed us all with a stare that would not be out of place in a Dracula film. It is a stare I will long remember. (...)

During one of the recesses, a supporter asked the prosecuting lawyer, "how can you sleep at night?". They were the very words used. They were spoken softly and without menace. At this, the supporter was immediately arrested! How Orwellian is that? We did not find out if anything was going to come of it, however.

Ernst himself looked in very good health. He seemed very 'alive'. He was alert and very aware of us, his supporters, whom he spent much time looking towards as though to remember each of our faces. His eyes went from one of us to the next. He was not very far away from any of us and so could see us all in detail. It was quite a thrill for me personally to be in the presence of a man of such high principle and bravery. During one of the recesses of the proceedings I was standing up at the back of the court and as Ernst was looking my way, I raised my hands in a salute of solidarity. He smiled broadly at me and he did not look away for a long time. He is a special person without a doubt.

I hope this is of some use to you Mrs. Zundel.

3. A young man who has known Ernst since he was a teenager:

The judge is attempting to find a government appointed attorney who is more in line with what he expects. He dismissed the current appointed attorney because she had National Socialist ideas and made some statements against the government, its imposed laws, and Jews.

When the Defence Attorney, Ms. Stolz rebutted, the Judge appeared to fall asleep and without question would have been able to have a enjoyable nap, were it not for some man who made a terribly rude noise directed at the Judge. This loud noise forced him to awake, and he looked visibly angry. Police tried to find who this man was, but couldn't get a clear association of his location, as no one of the onlookers reacted to when the man awoke the judge.

The matter was brought over to November 15, 2005, next week Tuesday.

The view is a two part here.

1) If the Judge is being nasty and will try to eliminate any good defence lawyer from the Zundel defence - as he can, once he has decided on a state attorney - he then has the power to remove any other lawyers from his case forthwith (Rieger, etc)

2) The judge has by his actions, sleeping inattentiveness etc, given grounds for his removal from the case and would need to be replaced.

Now what does that mean and how would it benefit Mr Zundel?

Well the German government under law must finish its case against him within 1 year, else the charges will have to be dropped.

So if a new attorney is appointed, the longer it takes and then the time needed to get them up to snuff, that may indeed push it pass the 1 year marker.

or

If a new judge must be found because of [this judge's] lack of duty and/or his poor demeanor to the defence team, then the time it takes to reassign a new judge and get him up to par may also take it past the 1 year mark.

Both of these events would force the courts into releasing Mr Zundel.

It remains to be seen how this whole event and its sub-directions play out.

[END]

I don't know about you, but I had a hearty laugh!

Imagine this "rude noise" scene in a movie - with all these dignified Zundel aficionados staring straight ahead, not losing composure, silently circling the wagons, protecting one of their own, while the police are searching for the enterprising honking scoundrel!

Now that's what I would call some legendary Aryan loyalty!

NO SURRENDER !

Ingrid

===== ===== =====

Reminder:

Help free Ernst Zundel, Prisoner of Conscience. His prison sketches - now on-line and highly popular - help pay for his defence. Take a look - and tell a friend.

http://www.zundelsite.org/gallery/donations/index.html

Contribute to Ernst Zündel's Defence

Table of Contents for additional articles

Revisionism 101: Basic Revisionism

Revisionism 201 for Holocaust Skeptics

"David against Goliath": Ernst Zündel, fighting the New World Order

"Lebensraum!": Ingrid Rimland, pioneering a True World Order