Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
THE HOFFMAN WIRE
Dedicated to Freedom of the Press, Investigative Reporting and Revisionist History
Michael A. Hoffman II, Editor
Editor's Note: From the sub-cellar of psychosis comes this report in the
Canadian media about the latest Zundel trial. Note that the prosecutor
(Grossmann) states that revisionists secretly believe that six million
"Jews" were gassed, but are too cowardly to say so. Revisionists have
the courage to risk everything to to publicly cast doubt on homicidal
gas chambers, but we are supposed to believe that they are too cowardly
to admit that they really believe in them! This is the logic of the Mad
Hatter, and Zundel is at the mercy of this mentality.
The virus of hate
Holocaust denier remains defiant, looks for recruits
Defense will paint him as a "prisoner of conscience"
Nov. 8, 2005 Toronto Star
MANNHEIM, GERMANY-Today, Germany puts on trial a high profile product of
its Nazi past. Yet it does so with little sense of drama.
Ernst Zundel, a German citizen who was a distasteful fixture in Montreal
and Toronto for 40 years, is charged with inciting hatred, denying the
Holocaust and dishonouring the dignity of Jews, living and dead.
Zundel is largely unknown in Germany and the media have so far ignored
"He doesn't have real influence on Germany's neo-Nazi scene," says
Manfred Murck, Hamburg deputy chief of the German intelligence service
that monitors extremist groups.
Yet behind the stone walls and barbed wire of this city's maximum
security prison, Zundel doesn't miss an opportunity to spread his
He avoids mingling with what he calls the "down-bred," multicultural
group of murderers and thieves he's been jailed with since being
deported from Canada eight months ago.
He prefers the company of the guards, describing their "humane"
behaviour as stirring warm feelings of belonging to the German "Volk,"
the sense of national identity that under Hitler became synonymous with
racial superiority - and mass murder.
Even his lawyer believes Zundel has little chance of avoiding jail under
Germany's strict laws. But while in custody awaiting trial, the
66-year-old revisionist remains defiant and on the lookout for recruits.
He seizes the chance when guards ask, as Zundel claimed in a recent
letter, "What is it that you know that is so feared by the system?"
"Then I let loose with pure Zundelism and watch my artillery barrage
land right on target in the depths of their souls - and I KNOW, Ingrid,
by their reaction that I have not lost the magic touch," he wrote to his
"It's an uplifting feeling for I know that the time will come when that
`KNOWING' will be treated like a national resource."
"To hell with the rest of the world," he added. "This is the new world
Even among diehard neo-Nazis, such comments are dismissed. Christian
Worch, a leading neo-Nazi organizer, says right-wing extremists are far
more preoccupied by immigration and unemployment than revising history,
especially when simply claiming the Holocaust is exaggerated can land
you in jail.
Worch, 49, who served five years for denying the Holocaust and waving
the swastika in public, says he asked neo-Nazi leaders whether
pro-Zundel demonstrations should be organized and got little more than a
From 1998 to 2003, 114 people in Germany were convicted of having made
statements that "approve, deny or minimize" crimes committed by Hitler's
regime, and are "liable to disturb the public peace."
Many had denied the Holocaust ever happened, or stated, for example,
that fewer than six million Jews were killed. The crime carries a
maximum penalty of five years. More than 1,400 others were convicted of
inciting "hatred against parts of the population."
In Canada, Zundel spent two years in jail on a federal security
certificate before federal court Judge Pierre Blais called him a "racist
hypocrite," a threat to Canadians, and threw him out of the country.
In Mannheim, it's Andreas Grossmann's job to keep him in jail as long as
As lead prosecutor in the case, Grossmann also wants to stop Zundel from
turning the trial into a platform for neo-Nazi propaganda. Zundel did
exactly that during Toronto court proceedings in the 1980s, which
resulted in the Supreme Court overturning a conviction for spreading
"It's perhaps better if no one talks about it," says Grossmann,
referring to media coverage the trial might receive.
Previous Holocaust deniers convicted in Mannheim include Fred Leuchter,
who presented a report at Zundel's second Toronto trial claiming the
Auschwitz death camp had no gas chambers. The report, flatly dismissed
by leading historians, has become gospel in the revisionist world.
Zundel is charged with statements contained on the "Zundelsite" website
and in biweekly "newsletters" he sends to followers. The indictment
includes his claims that most Jews in concentration camps died of
disease, that Hitler never ordered their extermination, and that a
"Holocaust lobby" has since "blackmailed" millions of dollars from the
Grossmann expects Zundel be jailed for three to five years. (That's funny - Grossman is in charge!/Draken)
"Not only are they liars and preachers of hate, they're also cowards,"
Grossmann says. "What they really believe is that the Holocaust
happened, that it was good, and that the only mistake is that they
didn't get them all. But they don't dare say that."
Zundel will appear before three judges and two jurors. Five days have
been set aside for the trial, but Grossmann expects Zundel's defence
team to drag it out as much as possible.
Zundel's lead lawyer, Jurgen Rieger, says his first motion will be to
replace all three "biased" judges. He'll describe Zundel as "a prisoner
of conscience," argue that the website is fully run by his Zundel's wife
and note that it's based in the U.S., where its content is protected by
freedom of speech laws.
Grossmann instead points to a court ruling that convicted German soccer
fans for giving Nazi salutes at a match in Poland, simply because the
images were broadcast on German TV.
Rieger acknowledges he has little chance of having top Holocaust deniers
accepted as expert witnesses. German law prevents a defence that tries
to prove the denier is right. (!!!/Draken)
Rieger was fined 3,600 euros for trying to use the tactic while
defending another client. Yet his team has sent Grossmann documents
making similar claims.
"If the lawyer stands up in court and says publicly that the Holocaust
did not happen, then I will have another case to prosecute," Grossmann
Germany's blanket ban on Holocaust denial is similar to laws in several
"There's a deep-seated fear here that if these hate messages are voiced,
some or many Germans might be attracted to them. I don't see that danger
at all, but this is an expression of the German trauma," says Winfried
Brugger, professor of constitutional law at the University of
"Every politician says we have a healthy, robust democracy in Germany,"
he adds. "But when it comes to right-wing radicalism most people think,
`Germany is frail and we are not 100 per cent sure that we won't again
fall into the Nazi trap.'"
Brugger says simple Holocaust denial should be protected as free speech.
Publicly confronting such lies "revitalizes" a truth that may otherwise
become a hollow mantra, he argues.
An April survey sponsored by the American Jewish Committee found a high
level of Holocaust awareness among Germans, including 77 per cent who
identified Auschwitz, Dachau and Treblinka as extermination camps.
"Germany has the lowest level of anti-Semitism in Europe," says Albert
Mayer, head of the Jewish Community of Berlin. "It's not paradise, but
it's a pretty good place to live."
Since 1989, Germany's Jewish community has grown from 27,000 to 200,000
- almost half of its pre-World War II level - largely through Russian
Other studies have found a German tendency to turn a blind eye to crimes
their parents or grandparents may have committed during the war. The
blame is invariably placed on abstract Nazis rather than real ones close
to home, causing analysts to warn that the lessons of history haven't
been fully learned.
Increasing concerns are the almost five million unemployed, the highest
since hard times propelled Hitler's National Socialists to power in
Direct parallels would be absurd, but neo-Nazis like Worch count on the
economic troubles to boost their support.
In September's national election, the neo-Nazi linked Nationalist Party
received 1.6 per cent of the vote. In eastern Germany last year, it
9.2 per cent of Saxony's ballots in regional elections.
"People denying the Holocaust are like a virus, a virus of pure
anti-Semitism. If we don't punish this crime, the virus can spread,"
Re: Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
What a fucking joke. It's all a dream. I'm sure it's all a dream.
Wont the future generations be having a gigantic laugh at all this. The sheer stupidity of it all.
It's actually quite macabre.
And how long do the poor silly Jews and their hangers on think they can get away with it? It's really time for more Jews to point out the ridiculous nqature of it all.
I am a poor middle class who mixes in VERY wide circles and I can tell ya I have gotton at least 60 fellow average middle class people laughing at the holohoax. That is just the beginning.
Better start that war quick boys.
Time is running out.
Re: Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
What the jew really fears is the truth. He needs government to make laws banning the truth so his con game can stand. Billions of dollars, more accurately trillions if you count materials along with the money that has been fraudulently extorted from the first world nations using the lie of the holocaust, has poured into Israel.
The notorious figure of 6 million jews exterminated has already dropped officially to less than a million and that figure is highly questionable, along with the term exterminated. To die in times of war as a result of that war is not extermination. Typhus in the camps was not a respector or persons, either.
The Zionists dealt with the German government to remove all jews who wanted to go to Palestine but those who did not were on their own.
Many of those who wanted no part of what was to become Israel went to England and filled the empty Liberty Ships returning to America after dropping off our soldiers to fight and die in the war.
Abba Eban stated that there were only approximately 600,000 jews in Europe at the time war broke out. The Nazis would have had to import jews in order for as many to die as claimed, which would mean you would have no "holocaust survivors." The fact that most jews were communists resulted in their being sent to the camps because Germany was fighting Communist Bolshevists in Russia.
Just as Freemasons do not recognize borders and loyalty to country over their fraternal oaths, neither do the jews. Their first and only loyalty is to themselves and, as such, represented a "fifth column" in Germany or any other place where they reside.
The United States placed Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WWll because we were at war with Japan even though most were US citizens. They were no more gassed and killed than were the jews. They were deemed a risk to National Security. Right or wrong, it happened.
It is neither racist nor anti-semitic to look honestly at the facts of history as well as the situation that exists today. The finances of the world are in the hands of the jews, nationally and internationally. They can make or break any country on the face of the earth. All major media is under their control, either directly through ownership or indirectly through controlling advertising which finances it. No opinion contrary to the jews' interest gets out. They set the agenda and control the "debate."
They own the diamond and emerald cartels, they are over-represented in governments so no country is secure as a result of their dubious "loyalty" since their first loyalty is to Israel, which is to say, themselves. Kol Nidre absolves them of any oaths they have to take in order to operate within governments and makes those oaths null and void.
They are over-represented in institutions of higher learning where they are free to teach our progeny the tenants of Communism and multiculturalism which is guaranteed to destroy any country in which it is practiced. That is why the jew will tell you in a heartbeat that Israel is for the jews only. He does not practice what he preaches. It is only for the goy. What other country would be allowed to treat a captive people the way the Palestinians are treated today?
Their goal is almost achieved, which is world domination. Their ideal population is represented by the UN's "brown man," no more blacks, no more yellow, red or white, just an amalgamation knowing no loyalty to a non-existant nation, living - or not - only to serve the jew. Books stating their aims exist but are in collections like the University of Texas were you cannot go unless you have special permission.
The goyim (non-jews) are by far too brainwashed and naive to see what is staring them in the face. By the time the truth dawns on them it will be too late. It may already be too late. It would require that all freedom-loving people, world wide, join together to fight the common enemy and I don't really see that happening.
Re: Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
we're still differentiating between Jews and Zionists right?
Re: Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
Re: Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
I believe I am aware of the concept, but many on this forum may not be.
Re: Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
But I still wonder what would serve them better. A monolithic brown race of people who had no 'united front' that could present opposition to their One Worldism? Or forcibly integrating groups and for the most part maintaining their differences, using the classic Marxist pincer technique of tension from 'above and below'?
I lean more towards the second case. Why else would they be funding La Raza, and endorsing their 'cosmic race' theories, or the Nation of Islam? Or something I saw recently on campus, 'Dragon Seed' (a Chinese racialist group)? Without such cleavages in society, they lose their pretext for control.
Re: Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
Re: Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
<a href="http://www.rense.com/general68/man.htm">Account Of The First
Hearing Regional Court
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.]
Re: Zündel SHOW Trial, Mannheim 2005
<a href="http://germarrudolf.com/persecute/asylum.html">Political Asylum for Germar Rudolf?</a>
For years the U.S. State Deportment has been claiming in its worldwide review of human rights that there are no reports of political prisoners in Germany (see http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/). Well, off the top of my head here are a few individuals I know personally, all of them political prisoners of Germany at some point during the last ten years, sentenced to prison terms for their peacefully expressed political or historical views: Fredrick Toben, Udo Walendy, Hans Schmidt, Fred Leuchter, Günter Deckert, Hans-Jürgen Witzsch, Ernst-Günther Kögel, Erhard Kemper.
Since 1993 the German government tries to force Germar Rudolf to believe in the official version of German history with all measures of persecution by prosecution. To find relief from this persecution, Germar Rudolf applied for political asylum in the United States in late 2000. His case will soon be heard by a U.S. Federal Court. It could prove to be a landmark case when it comes to the question whether or not Germany and other European countries should be allowed to put people in prison merely for their unpopular scholarly views on history or politics.
Because the U.S. State Department does not recognize Germany as a persecuting country, and because the INS cannot overrule State Department policies, it had to turn down Rudolf’s application. Even though this negative decision was expected, when turning down Rudolf’s application for political asylum, the INS also decided – and the INS Board of Appeals agreed – that
Rudolf’s application for political asylum was frivolous.
As a result of this, the INS ordered that Rudolf is subject to involuntary departure, meaning that he will be sent back to Germany in handcuffs; that he will be banned from the USA for a lifetime, meaning that he will never be able to return to the US; and that there is no remedy to change this, meaning that not even his marriage to a U.S. citizen and having a child with her can avert that deportation and banning.
This decision will be brought to a Federal Court for appeal. The reasons for appeal are, i.a.:
The harshest accusation the INS can make against an asylum seeker is that he filed a frivolous application. The harshest penalty the INS can hand down on an immigrant is involuntary departure, banning for a lifetime, and no remedy. In other words: under immigration law Rudolf was accused of the most severe crime he could possibly commit, and he was punished with the hardest penalty possible. The problem with this verdict is the following.
A frivolous application is defined by case law as an application either not back-up with any evidence for persecution or by committing treacherous acts against the INS during the asylum proceedings, like lying to the INS judge, forging evidence, manipulating witnesses, and the like.
Because of the severity of the consequences of filing a frivolous application, the immigration judge must notify the defendant (=immigrant) during the hearing that he considers categorizing his application frivolous, and the Judge also has to inform the defendant what the evidence is upon which he bases his assumption, so that the defendant can defend himself against this most severe accusation.
This decision of "frivolousness" was made without any notice, warning, or opportunity to clear up any discrepancies. This was in violation of Immigration Service regulations and rulings by various Federal Courts, which require that there be sufficient opportunity for the applicant to account for all discrepancies. This decision also openly contradicts the comments of the Immigration Judge during the hearing. He confirmed not only the seriousness of Rudolf's application (Transcript of Hearing, p. 209), but also that the record of evidence was extensive both in scope and scale (Transcript, pp. 18, 22, 25, 29, 149, 163, 208, 222, 312). As a reason for calling Rudolf's application "frivolous", the Judge mentioned two items to support his claim:
A letter Rudolf wrote back in 1994 to his godmother, in which he had denied to have used the pen name "Ernst Gauss". Of course, this proves only that he had lied to a relative some ten years ago, but not to the immigration judge. To the contrary: both during his German trial back in 1995 and in his application form for political asylum, Rudolf admitted to have used this pen name. If the fact that a person once in his life has lied to a relative is sufficient reason to deny political asylum, then the institution of political asylum would cease to exist, as it can be safely assumed that every human being at some point in his/her life has lied to a relative. It may also be pointed out that the immigration judge's claim, this lie would shed bad light onto Rudolf, is also false. After all, Rudolf had a good reason to deny the use of this pen name back in 1994, because at that time his scientific revisionist anthology "Dissecting the Holocaust" (German edition) was yet to appear, so he needed the secrecy of his pen name to protect himself from political persecution.
The immigration judge argued that Rudolf tried to hide the truth from him about his close relationship to the German rightwing extremist Otto Ernst Remer in a similar way as Rudolf tried to hide it from the German court back in 1995. As proof the judge indicated that Rudolf had not mentioned in his application form for political asylum that he had temporarily resided with Remer after he had fled to Spain. In his application form, Rudolf only mentioned “with various friends and in holiday apartments.” That Rudolf indeed resided at Remer's place can be seen from a newspaper article that Rudolf himself submitted to the court as evidence for his persecution. However, the article referred to by the judge only mentions that Rudolf "stayed with Remer." This is already a distortion by a journalist whose only interest was to link Rudolf to alleged Nazis. The article does not mention how long and for what purpose Rudolf stayed at Remer's residence. As a matter of fact, Remer's apartment served only as a meeting point with other individuals upon Rudolf's arrival in Spain. This point was chosen because Rudolf knew where Remer lived, since during his trial in Germany back in 1995, the entire German court had traveled to Spain to interrogate Remer as a witness. When Rudolf left Germany in March 1996, he was neither told who he would meet in Spain nor where he would be temporarily lodged. This was a security measure to prevent the German authorities to find Rudolf. Rudolf was actually lodged some 50 miles west of Remer's residence in a holyday apartment of a Spaniard whose name he cannot recall (which is why he did not give names) and later in the residence of an old German war veteran. Both locations were in the Spanish town of Estepona, which Rudolf indicated on his application form. (He does not remember the exact street addresses, though). Remer, however, lived in Marbella. So even the immigration judge could have concluded from these facts that Rudolf's temporary dwelling in Spain was not linked to Remer. Apart from that: the application form for asylum asks for “residences”, which are permanent dwellings. Neither of the locations where Rudolf resided during his short stay in Spain fulfills that criterion, since Rudolf never had any of his property with him in Spain, but merely luggage as one carries during a journey or vacation. Rudolf had no residence in Spain, only temporary lodgings comparable to hotels. And having stayed at Remer's residence for several hours while passing through certainly does not fulfill the criterion of a residence either.
During the hearing of his asylum case, Rudolf's short presence in Spain was not mentioned by anyone. Rudolf therefore had no chance to refute this false claim that suddenly appeared in the written verdict. These underhanded methods are comparable to the German court, which back in 1995 tried to prove in a similar mendacious way that Rudolf had allegedly tried to hide his close relationship to Remer.
The Federal Court will have to decide whether it is legal to sentence defendants for crimes they were not accused of during the hearing, and for which there is no evidence. Under normal circumstances, of course, such a verdict by any court, INS or otherwise, would never be upheld by a Federal Court. However, since Rudolf is the world’s leading publisher of Holocaust revisionist material, and he is increasingly successful in rallying renowned historians from all over the world behind him, not only the US government, but also the German and the Israeli governments will exert all the power they have to see to it that Germar Rudolf will not be able to enjoy civil rights as they are granted to any decent U.S. citizen, and for which the U.S. once claimed to have gone to war against Germany.
There are, of course, other interesting aspects to this case. For example the question whether Germany should be allowed to deny “thought crime” defendants to introduce any evidence deemed to support their dissenting views, and to even punish defence lawyers should they dare to introduce such evidence.
Imagine a U.S. judge would deny a defence lawyer to introduce evidence to prove that the crime his defendant is accuse of did not occur in the first place. Imagine the same judge would turn against that lawyer for that and put him on trial. That would cause an outrage, of course. But in Germany it is common practice demanded by Germany’s Supreme Court.
The INS, in it wisdom, thinks that it found a way out of that by arguing that even U.S. laws have rules where evidence can be rejected due to the question to be proven by it being “self-evident”. In the written verdict, the INS judge related the example of a defendant on trial for a DUI offense. If a forensic analysis of the defendants blood resulted in the fact that he was driving a car under the influence of illegal amounts of alcohol, then the judge would rightly reject any witness statement offered by the defense to the contrary.
The problem is, of course, that the INS turned the facts of Rudolf’s case upside down. To stick with the INS judge‘s example: Rudolf WAS the forensic expert testifying in court that the defendant was driving under the influence of alcohol (here he testified that his analysis show that the gas chambers were not under the influence of poison gas). But instead of granting his testimony, the German judges reject him, put him on trial for defaming all witnesses who did or would testify otherwise, and also put lawyers on trial, who want to introduce forensic evidence (like Rudolf’s testimony).
Imagine such a surreal situation! Imagine an expert testifying in court about the fatherhood of a defendant, based upon DNS analysis, would be thrown in jail because his testimony contradicts that of some “eyewitnesses”, and thus tainting their reputation!
Hence, should the Federal Court dealing with Rudolf’s case uphold the verdict of the INS court, then due process for immigrants and maybe even for US citizens would be a matter of the past:
defendants can be sentenced for crimes they were never accused of and for which there is no evidence
forensic expert witnesses can be put on trial because their testimony is an insult to eyewitnesses who disagree.
You think that will never happen! Well, you better watch your back, because when the Holocaust taboo is involved, water runs up the hill!
The human rights experts from Amnesty International have already made up their minds: Since “Holocaust denial” indirectly amounts to accusing Jewish eyewitnesses of having lied, it is a form of incitement to hatred. Therefore, in the minds of AI, forensic experts coming to different conclusions than eyewitnesses do indeed belong in jail.
Welcome to the New World Order!
|All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:36 AM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.