November 15, 2005
Good Morning from the Zundelsite - once more!
It's a virtual tsunami of articles and commentary of the
latest - I can barely keep up posting at least some of them!
I have somewhat of an explanation to what puzzles most of us
- just what is this business of having to have a "mandatory attorney"? Here
in America, I gathered, it would mean a Public Defender for people who are
too poor to pay for an attorney themselves. However, thanks to our
incredibly loyal supporters all over the world, so far Ernst has paid for
every single trial - every single penny for every single one! The taxpayers
of Canada have been made to pay for the Jews!
Just a "for instance": A few weeks ago I got the bill
for about $15,000 for court costs - assessed AGAINST US! That's costs above
and beyond what we have paid for our regular lawyers! And this is just one
instance of, I am guessing, 20-30 times where costs have been assessed
against Ernst over the past 20 years or so.
Now Ernst is in prison, and those bills come to me. This
last bill, too, has been paid.
Let this sink in: the Jewish attorneys of the government of
Canada got paid BY US for OPPOSING US in the Supreme Court when Ernst
applied for what is called "leave" - meaning permission to get the highest
court in Canada to look at what was done so criminally and brazenly to
Ernst! And this after the Court turned us down!
So no wonder that many people might need a "Public Defender"
at taxpayers' expense. However, to my knowledge, NEVER EVER has Ernst
resorted to such a solution!
That's why the "mandatory attorney" was such a puzzle to me,
especially since I knew we had four attorneys of our own in Germany alone -
[for the censors: That's Rieger, Stolz, Schaller and, I believe, an attorney
named Bock - NOT Mahler!] some of whom are working pro bono, and most of
whom are not being paid what we and they know they deserve to be paid!
Why, then, another "mandatory" attorney?
Below is one good commentary from someone I don't even know:
[start]
Ingrid,
I refer to your mistrial news. I am not a lawyer and not
qualified for legal advice, but I have some practical experience with the
legal system in the BRD (Germany) and I studied law two semester or so.
The mandatory attorney is what can be called lead attorney
or attorney in charge. "Mandatory" means that any defendant under the
criminal code or under the legal code (for a dispute above a certain
financial threshold) is obliged to be represented by a qualified legal
professional, i.e. a barred lawyer. Mandatory means it is not possible for
the defendant to represent him or herself or rejects to defend at all. If
this would happen and the defendant does not arrange for a lawyer, the
court will appoint the attorney (hence mandatory/obligatory attorney or
Pflichtverteidiger). However this is a rare and theoretical situation and
I do not know that this ever happened in any trial against the will of the
defendant. It is definitely not part of the beginning of any normal
lawsuit.
The defendant has a right to choose his attorney as long
as he or she is properly barred.
Horst Mahler's attorney license revocation is pending
(because of some political trials), I would guess that the judge can
actually drop him for formal reasons, even if he only acts as assistant.
Herbert Schaller is an Austrian, I am not sure if he can
act in Germany as mandatory attorney. He cannot be dropped for being too
old. Theoretically the judge would need to attest some kind of medical
problem or disability and come up with a formal examination.
Jürgen Rieger has never been dropped before, though it is
true that he was indicted for some thought offense. In my opinion he still
can act as attorney because he is still barred and no unbarring has ever
been attempted to my knowledge.
-
- "Mandatory Lawyer" Sylvia Stolz
The rejection of Sylvia Stolz is outrageous. There is
nothing in her past I know of, and the judge cannot proclaim that she is
influenced by Horst Mahler without providing any evidence or structured
statement. She is now virtually destroyed in her profession and
reputation. If she did anything that can be interpreted as an offending
comment (I doubt it is offending, maybe rude), then usually this only
justifies some minor warning not to do this again (like a yellow card in
football), in particular because of her clean past.
I don't know much about the lawsuit procedure law, any
attorney however should. But I would guess a judge cannot reject the
defense on his own. If he does, this step would need to be confirmed and
examined by the next higher court until it becomes a verdict. Any such
procedure would take considerable time, in particular because such things
never happened before. I believe Ernst should appeal this decision, in
particular to delay the lawsuit and hope it takes longer than one year.
I hope my English is good enough and I also hope you get
better responses from qualified legal professionals. In my opinion
everything should be attempted to stay with Sylvia Stolz and of course to
support this remarkable and brave person.
[END]
===== ===== =====
|
Setting the Record Straight: Letters from Cell # 7
$10 - 180 Pages
Find out who this "premier thought criminal" really is -
how he thinks, how he writes, what he's really saying! You will
be astonished to learn why this man is so feared by the world's
manipulators of your thoughts!
Order form: HTML
format | PDF
Format |
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
Please write to Ernst Zündel, let him know that he is not
alone:
Ernst Zundel
JVA Mannheim
Justiz-Vollzugsanstalt
Herzogenried Strasse 111
D 68169 Mannheim
Germany
|
|