Pressemeldung der Mannheimer Staatsanwaltschaft

Day 1 of the Zundel Trial:

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

Our man at the Zundel trial which opened today in Mannheim e-mailed the following report. The trial of Germany’s most famous political prisoner – and Canada’s too – opened in an atmosphere of police and state repression.

Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression

Today lots of excitement!

The court is overflowing with Zundel supporters. The entire court is filled, and at least 20-30 more wait in the hall. There are lots of media outlets here, so keep an eye on German media. There are people here from as far away as Ireland, Canada, Austria, France, etc. There is also press here from Paraguay. Some of the local press people were saying, "We Germans are not allowed to write German history?"

Ernst is looking in good spirits and gave me the thumbs up during the hearing. During breaks he stays in the court room. He is not allowed to talk to anyone but his lawyers.

The laws that Ernst [is accused to have] broken are as follows:

1945 Nürnberg

1950 Deutschlandvertrag

1990 2 more Deutschlandvertrags and 4 Allied laws. Specifics where not given to me, although I asked.

The lawyers argued for Ernst's release as he has been in jail for almost 3 yrs now. They petitioned the judge for his release and also said since a new lawyer is coming on board, they will need more prep time and asked for a several month adjournment. Most feel he won't be released - that this trial is just a propaganda project.

The police went around to see if you were there, asking a lady sitting in front of me for papers to see that she wasn't you. I am sitting beside a man who speaks good English, and he is giving me a running idea of what is happening.

Gunter Deckert is here - [a former political leader, imprisoned previously for five years or more, if I am not mistaken because he verbally translated the Leuchter Report] Lady Michelle Renouf from Britain and another leading German - I'll try to get his name soon. He might be from the NPD [a small but rapidly growing and much feared Nationalist party in Germany] and a person named Max Becker, who I think was also charged like Ernst.

I saw maybe one or two ARA types. There was no protest today in front of the court.

The judge is constantly getting mad at the crowd in the room because they clapped after Rieger and Ernst's lady lawyer spoke - and booed and hissed when the judge made some remarks. I'll get [a friend] to send a better report, but it seems like the judge is trying to throw off all the legal counsel. So far Mahler was forced not to be on the defense team, and there was talk about removing Ernst's mandatory lawyer, the lady [Attorney Sylvia Stolz]. Then more talk about removing Rieger and the person from Austria [an attorney named Schaller]. They said Rieger is too close to Ernst, and that the Austrian is too old.

The police are quite mean here. There is a heavy police presence. At least 30-50 of them are here. You have to pass through a metal detector, plus get a wand over you. The prosecutor was giving an interview and someone said to him, "How do you sleep at night?" or something similar - and the police took him away. About 15 minutes later they escorted him out of the court house.

I tried to take a few pictures in the court. At the beginning they allowed some of the media to take pictures - I could not get in the court room at that time. During a break I took a few pictures, thinking it was ok, and the police went nuts and yelled something at me. I just put my camera away, and they seemed ok about that.

=====

A few hours later:

The main judge read 7 pages of charges into the court record about what Ernst has done wrong in Germany - something about being a "Disturbance of Peace" and "Disturbance of the Peace of a Volk - Jewish people, I think, as it was never mentioned with any specifics [in the formal charges].

Then the Judge mentioned something that Ernst had said about 11 Feb '04 that "Jews will be rooted out as were the Indians", etc. - also something about the "Jew problems" - and that he had commented, also in 2004, that "if it can't be spoken about, nothing can be resolved." [Quotation marks added for clarity] Further, Ernst was to have said that "Germany is not the land of the Jews, nor the land of the Turks, but the land of the German peoples."

Then there was a very heated debate about the dismissal of a lawyer called Dr. Mahler as he has lost his licence, because things he said about the Holocaust in court broke the law. Further he is so-called now too old to practice. A Sylvia Stolz is supposed to act as his assistant. [Not true!] The court had to take a recess to review if this is true and that she could act as a lawyer in this case. She was allowed to act as a lawyer, but they found that she has made some type of pro NS [National Socialist] statements and [entertains some] mental views, and thus - since she was paid by the German government - she could not stay unless Ernst was to accept her privately. They asked him and he agreed..

Then the court said that he has too many lawyers. He has 4 and is allowed only 3. Thus he has to fire one of them. I understand that Bock is the one he releases.

The lawyer [Sylvia] Stolz is quite stubborn and fights with the main judge, butting heads. He seems to a) laugh at her b) gets really upset with her. She has problems because she at some point put it on written record that she has issues with the Jews, German law, and the judges. This will cause a colourful trial for certain

German Court Strips Zundel of His Defence Team 

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 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 prejudice. 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 quite, 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.

.

Zundel Trial In Germany -- A Farce!

& audi alteram partem ('hear the other side', ie that both sides should be given a fair hearing). It seems to me that the judge is biased. He is not willing to hear what the defence has to say. Instead he wants to 'shut them up'. And he clearly considers the Prosecution's cause as his own. He thus has a 'stake' in the trial, an interest in Ernst Zundel being found guilty.

He is therefore inherently biased.

2 By Art 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights & Fundamental Freedoms

every person has a right to a fair trial. The Federal Republic of Germany is a signatory to the Convention and is therefore obliged to abide by it. Art 6 states that:

ARTICLE 6
1 In the determination of [...] any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly by the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.

2 Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.

3 Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights: [...] ?

(c) to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing [...]; ? (d) to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;

I have underlined the relevant phrases. The right to a fair trial in section

1 of Art 6 is an 'absolute right', meaning that no matter what the circumstances everyone has a right to a fair trial (whereas s. 3 is a 'relative right', meaning that it may be limited if it be legitimate to do so in the circumstances). It has been stated above that the judge in the Zundel case is biased in the sense that the court was not an 'independent and impartial tribunal'. It is further submitted that the result of this would be that Zundel would not get a 'fair and public hearing' within Art 6(1). The court is therefore in breach of its obligations under Art 6(1). I suspect that Mr. Zundel’s legal team would appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasburg if all else fails.

3 Moreover, it is noted that by Art 6(3)(c) Herr Zundel has a right to choose his own legal team. This is not within the jurisdiction of the German

court. This is also true in relation to leading counsel's assistant. The court is therefore ultra vires (beyond its powers) and its ruling on the matter is null and void. I suspect that also in this regard Ernst Zundel's legal team will seek to appeal to the higher courts, and, failing this, to the Court in Strasburg.

4 On a different note, there is a problem if Ernst Zundell's defence would be in breach of §130 of the Penal Code by defending their client to the best of their ability because advocates are obliged by their professional codes to defend their clients fearlessly and to the best of their ability. More importantly, if certain kinds of evidence cannot be admitted in court due to a general prohibition against displaying such material in public, how can the accused have a fair trial?

5 Judges are not, it is submitted, competent to rule on what is historical fact. If the judge in question wished to establish an historical fact (whatever that is) the proper way to go about it, in my opinion, would have been to call expert evidence. I say in my opinion, but I do think that any person with sound judgment would adopt the same opinion on this matter. This attitude of the judge also reveals his prejudice against the defence.

6 I can think of no good reason why Ernst Zundel should be kept in custody while an important question of law is being decided in the Constitutional Court. The case will surely take a very long time, perhaps more than a year.

The court would need to have very good reasons to justify keeping an accused person (cf. Art 6(2), above: everyone is innocent until proven guilty) in custody for a substantial length of time. For example, the court would have to hear evidence that Mr. Zundel is very likely to flee Germany. Not just that he might, but that he is very likely to. However, it seems to me that the Regional Court decided the matter simply on a whim. This, again, is contrary to the Convention (see Art 5).

7 In conclusion, I would say that the trial of Ernst Zundel is an absolute outrage. Whether one sympathizes with his views or not, it is most unsatisfactory that a person is denied his right to a fair trial because of his beliefs. If this is truly the state of affairs in Germany, then hypocrisy and, indeed, tyranny must have gained the upper hand in that so-called democratic republic. I am absolutely outraged about this. Next time a German politician speaks of democracy and human rights, please ask him to ditch the rhetoric and, ahem, shove it up his a**.

Yours sincerely,
Patrick Boch,
Student of Law,
England.