***Ingrid Rimland declines "safe conduct" invitation by German court***

[zgrams at zgrams.zundelsite.org]

May 10, 2006
BY FED EX INTERNATIONAL AND FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION

Dr. Meinerzhagen
Presiding Judge Landgericht Mannheim
68169 Mannheim,
Germany Telefax (06 21) 292-1314

Re: Zundel v. Gonzales, No. 3:03-CV-105,
United States District Court,
Eastern District of Tennessee

Zundel v. Gonzales, Chertoff, No. 05-5287,
United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit

Criminal proceedings against Ernst Zundel for Suspicion of stirring 
up hatred against national, ethnic, racial or religious groups and 
other offenses, Regional Court of Mannheim,
6 KLs 503 Js 4/96

Dear Dr. Meinerzhagen:

I am writing to you on behalf of my client Ingrid Rimland Zundel 
("Dr. Rimland"), in response to your letter of April 4, 2006.
This letter should not be construed as a recognition of any sort of 
jurisdiction by the Landgericht Mannheim or any other German 
authority over the person of Dr. Rimland.

After due consideration, and notwithstanding the fact that she would 
very much like to see and help her husband, Dr. Rimland hereby 
declines your request that she appear as a witness on her own 
volition in the Landgericht Mannheim.

Without waiver, she finds it unnecessary under these terms to assert 
any privilege provided for under German law.

She states in the strongest terms possible her objection to the 
assertion of jurisdiction of the Landgericht Mannheim over her 
husband, Ernst Zundel, and over the criminal charges that have been 
filed against her husband because of his speech, the criminalization 
of which is completely unknown in the United States and would be 
regarded as a scandal by the vast majority of the American populace.

Dr. Rimland, a citizen of the United States of America, finds it 
deplorable as well that the Mannheim Public Prosecutor's Office is 
conducting an investigation of her on similar allegations. Dr. 
Rimland considers it an insult and an imposition that her testimony 
would be sought by a country which wishes to criminalize her for 
conduct that is not criminal in her own country.

Here in the United States, we are free to comment critically about 
persons and movements of any ethnic group or heritage or religion, 
and free to act nonviolently and politically to persuade others of 
our views, without running the risk that we will be prosecuted for 
"hate," and this is a form of legal protection that has long helped 
insure us against great imbalances of power, discontents, deceits and 
treacheries, and oligarchy and demagoguery, and we commend it to the 
court and to the German people. We submit that German laws which, by 
criminalizing speech, purport to protect Germany's citizenry against 
the forces and causes which led to World War II are camouflaging a 
deceptive political agenda.

Dr. Rimland likewise declines to provide testimony or respond to 
questions via a videoconference link.

Dr. Rimland similarly declines to be examined by a consular official 
or other official by commission, whether at a German consulate or any 
other location in the United States. She finds it particularly 
offensive that officials of any German consulate should examine her 
in light of her conclusion that German consular officials colluded 
with Canadian and U.S. authorities for years to try to snare Mr. 
Zundel in an extrajudicial rendition, which she bases on familiarity 
with German- and English-language documents released by the 
prosecutor's office in the case in which you are presiding.

Dr. Rimland does reiterate, however, that she has always been the 
owner and operator of "the Zundelsite," the website referenced in 
your letter, and I understand that you have already read in open 
court a statement she sent to you so indicating.

If the court wishes to submit a list of questions to Dr. Rimland 
regarding her statement, she would consider providing written 
responses.

Request is also made that you advise me consistent with Germany's 
international law obligations of any and all measures of "judicial 
assistance" by the United States that the Landgericht Mannheim or 
Mannheim prosecutor's office or any counsel appointed for Herr Zundel 
may invoke, intends to invoke, will invoke, does invoke, or attempts 
to invoke, in order to try to obtain Dr. Rimland's testimony.

Finally, and on another subject, note is made "for the record" of the 
inaccuracy and impropriety of your adverse Decision on the issue of 
my status as legal counsel to Mr. Zundel, authored by you and 
incorporating the inaccurate international law analysis delegated to 
Dr. Hans-Georg Koch of the Max Planck Institute, which was the 
subject of your last correspondence to me. As you should know, Dr. 
Koch could reach the conclusion he reached only by arbitrarily 
disregarding the plain meaning of "legal counsel" and then by 
impermissibly limiting the definition of what is a restraint on Ernst 
Zundel's liberty. Dr. Koch was prepared, in the service of an illicit 
agenda, to recognize only the restraint that Ernst Zundel is 
currently suffering in a German prison as a restriction on his 
liberty, notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Koch went on to 
acknowledge that in the United States, the habeas corpus remedy being 
prosecuted by the undersigned for Mr. Zundel is a classic protection 
of a liberty interest and is a remedy that remains available to him. 
The deplorable analysis adopted by the Court has not served to 
increase my already-diminished confidence or the confidence of my 
client in the German judicial system.

Thank you for your attention to these matters, and if I can clarify 
any of the above points, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,
Bruce Leichty

cc: Ingrid Rimland Zundel
Ernst Zundel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/attachments/20060511/10465057/attachment.htm