Source: http://www.vrijgeestesleven.be/directe%20democratie/Archief/zundelproces1.htm
Timestamp: 2017-04-30 10:52:09+00:00

Document:
Zündel-proces 2005
Dem Angeklagten wird, in bewusstem und gewolltem Zusammenwirken mit seiner gesondert verfolgten Ehefrau Dr. Ingrid R. [Rimland], vorgeworfen, als der aktivste bzw. führende sog. „Revisionist" von Toronto/Kanada und Pigeon Forge/USA aus, zuletzt im Februar 2003, über die von ihm verantwortete Internet-Homepage „Zündelsite" sowie schriftlichen Publikationen, insbesondere in von ihm verfassten und versandten „Germania-Rundbriefen", weltweit, auch in Deutschland, nazistische und antisemitische Propaganda betrieben zu haben.
Auf ca. 20 Anklageseiten werden einzelne Ausführungen auf der „Zundelsite" aus dem Jahre 2003, aus der Schrift des Angeklagten mit Erscheinungsjahr 1999 „Sein Kampf für Deutschland" sowie aus „Germania-Rundbriefen" von 2000 bis Anfang 2003 wiedergegeben, die u. a. wie folgt lauten:
„Niemand bestreitet die Existenz von Konzentrationslagern. Es waren Haftanstalten mit nicht annähernd soviel Insassen, wie allgemein behauptet wurde. Es waren keine Vernichtungslager…Es ist traurige Wahrheit, dass zehntausende von Menschen verschiedener Nationalitäten in deutschen Lagern gestorben sind, größtenteils durch Krankheiten…"
„Die sog. 4 Millionen, revidiert zu 1,5 Millionen sind geschrumpft auf 74.000 bewiesene Todesfälle…Etwas über 30.000 Juden starben in Auschwitz…hauptsächlich wegen Krankheiten und Übervölkerung"
„Oder geht es nicht eher darum, die Deutschen in unaufhörlicher geistiger, politischer, ökonomischer und finanzieller Knechtschaft zu halten? Um sie anfällig zu machen für immer neue, kaum verhohlene Erpressungsversuche, die schon über 100 Milliarden Mark aus ihnen herausgepresst haben für die Holocaust-Lobbyisten und die Mitglieder ihres Stammes…Der Missbrauch Deutschlands und der Deutschen muss aufhören."
„…Ein wichtiger Punkt, den die meisten Leute nicht wissen, ist, dass die Idee, das Konzept und auch die Pläne für die Nürnberger Verfahren rein jüdischen Gehirnen entsprungen sind."
„Der zweite Weltkrieg sei Deutschland aufgezwungen worden! Hitler wollte keinen Krieg, er brauchte den Frieden für den sozialen Aufbau"
Der Holocaust wird als ein Lügenmonstrum bezeichnet und, „obgleich Rassist und Gegner der Juden, hätte Hitler niemals befohlen oder geduldet, dass jemand aufgrund seiner Rasse oder Religion getötet werde."
Bekundungen zu Gaskammern und Gaswagen, „welche in Wahrheit niemals existiert hätten", sollen durch „erpresste Geständnisse" zustande gekommen sein. Israel wird als „zionistischer Banden- und Mörderstaat" bezeichnet, wobei man es „mit jahrtausendealtem Gedankengut und Geheimnissen okkulter, teuflischer, den Antichrist als Messias betrachtenden Menschen zu tun hätte". Der Holocaust sei „förmlich aus dem Nichts durch teuflisch raffinierte Propaganda geschaffen worden". Israel sei „Zufluchtsort eines teuflischen Weltgangstertums, ein Wahngebilde, eine Missgeburt religiöser Spinner".
„Als wir so verbissen um die Wahrheit zum Holocaust-Thema kämpften, wollten wir natürlich die deutsche Ehre wiederherstellen und unseren Nachkommen ein ehrliches, sauberes Bild der Kämpfe der deutschen Wehrmacht und der SS hinterlassen."
„Erst unter Hitler begann man, sich in Deutschland und später auch in anderen mit Deutschland alliierten europäischen Ländern von Staats wegen dieser weltweiten jüdischen Verschwörung anzunehmen."
Der Kriegsausgang 1945 wird als „Sieg des Judentums über Deutschland" bezeichnet und zu Adolf Hitler heißt es:
„Eine innere Befreiung wie durch Adolf Hitler…oder ähnliche Volkstribune wird es in dieser Epoche der Geschichte sicher nicht in absehbarer Zeit geben…Am Ende, nachdem alles gesagt und geschrieben ist, kämpfen wir schlicht und einfach um das Überleben der eigenen Art, der eigenen Rasse, des eigenen Volkes."
Die Ermittlungen der Staatsanwaltschaft Mannheim begannen wohl 1996; die Zuständigkeit der Staatsanwaltschaft Mannheim wird daraus hergeleitet, dass die Internet-Seite „Zundelsite" auch in Mannheim abrufbar gewesen sei; hieraus folgt die Zuständigkeit des Landgerichts Mannheim.
Day 1 of the Zundel Trial:
Supporter Arrested for Comment to Prosecutor; Two of Ernst's Lawyers Removed
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 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 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.
Zundel Trial In Germany -- A Farce!
1 It seems relevant to start by mentioning two fundamental maxims of
justice: Nemo iudex in causa sua ('no man should be judge in his own cause')
& 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.
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
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.
? (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?
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).

References: §130
 §5
 §130
 §130
 §130
 §130