"Mandatory attorney" - What does it mean?

zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org
Tue Nov 15 13:32:12 EST 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:



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.

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.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20051115/ef250b34/attachment.htm

More information about the Zgrams mailing list