Fwd: The Zundel Trial: Another Account of the First Hearing

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

>
>
>
>
>Good Morning from the Zundelsite:
>
>It is still very early morning - and it is my pleasure to send you 
>yet another account of the first day of the Zundel/Holocaust Trial 
>on German soil.  Before I let you read it, I would like to share a 
>few observations of my own, not having been at the trial but having 
>seen a few myself and heard many accounts of previous Holocaust 
>trials in Canada.
>
>This trial is different, just as I predicted it would be. 
>
>First of all, notice the Jewish absence.  There might well have been 
>Jewish reporters;  I am not talking about those -  I am talking 
>about the ever-present “Holocaust survivors" who would give 
>mournful, highly welcome interviews to media in Canada. As far as I 
>know, there was only one person identified by some members of the 
>public as a Jew - allegedly, he stood at the entrance and took 
>pictures of everybody entering the court room.  He took flight - he 
>literally ran away! - when one of our own returned the favor and 
>tried to snap a picture of him. 
>
>Secondly, the riff-raff was notably absent.  In Canada, B'nai Brith 
>& Co used to come to the hearing with the ARA always in tow, 
>hoodlums who obliged their handlers with glowering looks at the 
>Zundelists and, once, bringing a rat in a brown bag, intending to 
>let it let loose.  (The poor critter was taken into custody, I 
>understand, by one of the guards at the door ...)  Here, the 
>ARA-like riff-raff is called “die Chaoten" who, in Canada at least, 
>were said to be “paid" with freebie Hamburgers and such after each 
>obligatory show of public intimidation.
>
>Thirdly, in Canada at least, there were no open threats against the 
>defense, as happened on this first day, in full view of the world. 
>In the past, there was covert harassment against Doug Christie, and 
>none-too-subtle sneers in the media as “the attorney who defended 
>the likes of Ernst Zundel..." upon which everybody was supposed to 
>hold their noses.  Here, the strategy seems to have been, in full 
>few of a media corps who pricked up their ears, as judged by some of 
>their comments to me, to decimate the defense team right at the 
>outset, replacing them with minions of their choice - in other 
>words, to swing the “Auschwitz cudgel" - “Auschwitzkeule", as it is 
>called in Germany in the vernacular - against the Zundel Team and 
>against any revelations that are bound to come out if this charade 
>against a person's human rights, as guaranteed by international 
>agreements. 
>
>This is probably not the place for me to confess, but I feel for Dr. 
>Meinerzhagen.  It must not be easy on one's ego to have the world 
>take notice of what kind of sleazy job has been assigned to him.  I 
>believe he is an intelligent man of some soul and discernment;  this 
>could be his chance to enter history with honor and do right by the 
>people of his homeland. 
>
>So.  That's my take. 
>
>Below is yet another courtroom visitor's take on what transpired on 
>Day One of Zundel Holocaust Trial Number Three:
>
>[START]
>
>The Zündel-Trial
>
>Account of the First Hearing - Regional Court Mannheim, 08.11.05
>By Markus Haverkamp
>
>
>On Tuesday morning roughly 80 supporters of Ernst Zündel and 35 
>representatives of the media met at the Regional Court Mannheim, a 
>court notorious for its zeal and fervour in persecuting 
>Revisionists. The atmosphere was extraordinarily pleasant, the 
>supporters having come from as far as Canada, the UK, France and 
>Switzerland. Following the usual security procedures by the police, 
>who were very friendly indeed, the hearing began shortly after 09.00 
>when the judge, Dr. Meinerzhagen, his two colleagues and two jurors 
>entered the courtroom. Ernst Zündel, wearing a blazer and tie, made 
>a healthy and confident impression; he was represented by Miss 
>Sylvia Stolz, whom Ernst Zündel had appointed as his mandatory 
>lawyer, as well as Jürgen Rieger and Dr. Herbert Schaller (Austria) 
>as his lawyers of choice. Miss Stolz' assistant was Horst Mahler. 
>Ernst Zündel was thus represented by possibly the most experienced 
>and highly qualified team of lawyers for dealing with Holocaust 
>persecution and nationalism.
>
>The judge opened the hearing by taking down Ernst Zündel's name, 
>date of birth, profession and address. Having done so, Dr. 
>Meinerzhagen proceeded to attack the defence team, by first reading 
>out aloud Horst Mahler's prohibition to practice his profession that 
>had been passed by the Local Court Tiergarten, and extensively 
>quoting Herr Mahler's remarks on Revisionism, the Jewish Question 
>and the status of the German Reich. He then demanded that Herr 
>Mahler be relieved of his appointment as Miss Stolz' assistant. 
>Sylvia Stolz pointed out that owing to the fact that Horst Mahler 
>was not acting as a lawyer but merely as her assistant there were no 
>grounds for dismissing Herr Mahler. The judge retorted that it would 
>seem that Mahler's influence on the defence is considerable, to 
>which Sylvia Stolz replied that it is alone her business which 
>writings she makes use of in her defence and that this is her 
>responsibility. Upon this, the judge threatened to have Herr Mahler 
>removed by force and put into custody for a day. The public shook 
>their heads with disbelief at hearing this. At this point, Jürgen 
>Rieger pointed out that such attacks against the defence had not 
>even taken place in the Gulag. As Sylvia Stolz continued to be 
>persistent in having Mahler as her assistant, the judge ordered the 
>police to remove Mahler from the courtroom, at which point (the 
>guards were already standing behind Horst Mahler) Miss Stolz stated 
>that as it was her decision, not the court's, and that seeing as 
>they were being coerced by force, she would herewith relieve Mahler 
>from his duty as assistant. Mahler then took a seat in the public 
>area. All this caused an uproar from the public provoking the judge 
>to threaten to lock the public out.
>
>Dr Meinerzhagen, however, was merely warming up.
>
>The judge then read out the court decision from 07.11.05 where it 
>was decided that the petition of the defence to have Zündel released 
>from custody for the time being until the Federal Constitutional 
>Court decides whether §130 Penal Code (Holocaust muzzle) is 
>congruent with §5 Basic Law (freedom of opinion and speech) was 
>refused. The judge then made it clear that all "incitement to 
>hatred" by the defence would be vigorously suppressed and then 
>stated that the defence was using terms and stating matters which 
>where endangering the defence of being itself accused of violating 
>§130 Penal Code. He here said that he would not listen to 
>"pseudo-scientific views since the Holocaust is a historically 
>ascertained fact" (this caused the public to roar with laughter).
>
>Dr Meinerzhagen continued by saying that he was not sure that Sylvia 
>Stolz is suited to being Ernst Zündel's mandatory lawyer as she was 
>likely to make herself guilty of the violation of §130; furthermore, 
>since Ernst Zündel was thus likely to lose his mandatory lawyer, 
>which would slow the proceedings down, the status of Miss Stolz as 
>his mandatory lawyer is to be revoked.
>
>After Zündel made it clear that he wishes to be represented by Miss 
>Stolz, the court took a break to deliberate on this issue. After its 
>deliberation, the court revoked Miss Stolz' appointment as Ernst 
>Zündel's mandatory lawyer. Dr Meinerzhagen then proceeded to say 
>that Jürgen Rieger was not suited as the mandatory lawyer of the 
>accused either, because it is known that Herr Rieger is of 
>Revisionist opinion and it is to be feared that he would not be 
>properly objective in the matter. The judge here cited examples from 
>Jürgen Rieger's past - facts which he obtained by breaking the data 
>protection laws as Rieger then pointed out.
>
>Moving on to Dr. Schaller, the judge stated that he too was not 
>suited to be Zündel's mandatory lawyer either, since owing to his 
>old age it could not be guaranteed that Dr. Schaller would be up to 
>the job. In his ensuing, powerful and brilliantly delivered 
>statement, Jürgen Rieger drew the judge's attention to the fact that 
>Konrad Adenauer had been well into his 70s when first elected as 
>chancellor of Germany, this as well as many other statements again 
>causing the public to voice their approval, giggle and laugh.
>
>The purpose of the Judge was all to obvious: by eliminating Ernst 
>Zündel's brilliant defence team he would be able to appoint a 
>mandatory defence lawyer of his own choosing, one who would not make 
>any petitions or place motions to hear evidence, but who would act 
>in accordance with Dr. Meinerzhagen's designs. The defence, however, 
>refused to be intimidated by these actions.
>
>After having eliminated the possibility of Zündel having a mandatory 
>lawyer of his preference, the judge asked how the matter was to be 
>continued, to which the accused stated that he would dismiss his 
>third lawyer of choice (Bock, not present at the hearing) and would 
>take Sylvia Stolz, Jürgen Rieger and Dr. Schaller as lawyers of 
>choice. (Note: In hearings before a regional court, German law 
>requires that the accused have a mandatory lawyer; the accused may 
>also have up to three lawyers of choice). Rieger then pointed [out] 
>that such a decision ought to be left to the bar, and Miss Stolz 
>added that since the court desires to have a mandatory lawyer who 
>has Ernst Zündel's trust, the court ought to act accordingly, 
>unless, of course, the court has other things in mind. At this 
>juncture, the hearing was interrupted for 90 minutes to allow for 
>lunch.
>
>During the lunch break, the defence lawyers as well as the public 
>prosecutor gave interviews to the media. During an interview with 
>the latter, one of Zündel's supporters, Dirk Heuer, asked the public 
>prosecutor in front of the cameras: "How can you sleep at night?" 
>The police led him away on the spot.
>
>After lunch, having again been through the security screening (the 
>police officials becoming increasingly amicable), we returned to the 
>courtroom. Jürgen Rieger then proceeded to read out a petition that 
>the court is prejudiced. The eloquence and emotional power of 
>Rieger's statements can only be hinted at. After Rieger finished, 
>Sylvia Stolz made a statement, saying that the defence was being 
>publicly threatened not to state anything forbidden by the court, 
>and that this is an outrage and that such thoughts could only be the 
>fruit of a sick mind. Miss Stolz then petitioned to exclude the 
>public from further hearings on the grounds that the defence was 
>being threatened by the court of being persecuted for violation of 
>§130 Penal Code. (Note: This paragraph only comes into effect when 
>the "crime" is perpetrated in public; by excluding the public, the 
>defence would be able to voice "forbidden thoughts" without being 
>liable for persecution). Sylvia Stolz continued by saying that 
>should the court wish to have a public trial, the defence team would 
>be in grave danger of persecution.
>
>The court then decided to go into recession until Tuesday 15.11.05, 10.00.
>
>On leaving the courtroom, the sympathy of the police who had been 
>present throughout the hearing was extraordinary - expressions of 
>support, pats on the back, etc.
>
>All in all, the day was a huge success. Dr. Meinerzhagen clearly 
>showed his prejudice and his will to destroy Ernst Zündel's defence 
>as well as his will not to accept any evidence the defence lawyers 
>might present in order to defend the accused. Furthermore, the judge 
>clearly broke the most basic of judicial norms by publicly 
>threatening the defence before they had even started defending the 
>accused, as well as by forcing Horst Mahler to leave the floor and 
>revoking Sylvia Stolz' appointment as mandatory defence lawyer. It 
>was blatantly obvious that this was to be a show trial.
>
>The defence team put up a brilliant fight; Jürgen Rieger with his 
>powerful, witty comments and Sylvia Stolz with her quiet, calm and 
>perfectly determined bearing. The two final petitions by the defence 
>team were excellent strategic moves: a) the court will have to deal 
>with the petition that it is prejudiced, i.e. it will have to 
>analyse its actions and account for them, this being something the 
>court dreads, and b) by petitioning to exclude the public, Miss 
>Stolz gave the court a choice: to either exclude the public, in 
>which case the court will be confronted with the evidence from 
>Germar Rudolf's "Lectures on the Holocaust" and Horst Mahler's 
>"Motion to Hear Evidence on the Jewish Question", which would be 
>devastating for the court, as well as creating waves both in the 
>judicial world as well as in public (why the secret trial?), or, to 
>include the public in which case the defence team would be tried 
>itself for presenting its evidence nonetheless, causing both the 
>public and the judicial world to ponder what is going on. Either 
>way, the way things look it seems highly unlikely that the court can 
>reach a decision that truly benefits its plans to lock Ernst Zündel 
>up.
>
>The show trial continues on Tuesday, 15 November 2005 at the 
>Regional Court Mannheim, 10.00.  [I believe it is 9:00 o'clock, as 
>previously announced.]
>
>[END]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20051110/e3b09691/attachment.htm