This is the continuance of :
Mattogno/Deckert, Appeal, LG MA [?], Day 2, 28.11.2011
Start: 23.30 [?] [Is this the date??? Or did you go to court at 11:30 at night?] – Room 3 this time. All seats taken. Almost the same people as on Day 1, including Sylvia Stolz, Wilfried L. and Bernd B.
There are no sheriff’s officers in the courtroom. – Media: My „special friend MACK“ from the MM (Mannheimer Morgen, a newspaper [?]) was there. I gave him two of my appeal forms, i.e., the “reasoned request“ addressed to the Federal Constitutional Court dated 14.11 as well as the application filed today; see below. – State Prosecutor Grossmann was represented by his superior.
As a prelude, Presiding Judge Roos ( R ), declared that today’s proceedings wouldn’t take long, since he was not feeling well: he had a cold. And the proceedings really were short, concluding at 14.20 h.
What did we “advertise“? – First, in accordance with my request, I received the written copy of decisions from the first day of the proceedings, followed by an exchange of „documents“, i.e., I had to give a lawyer photocopies of the 4 decisions as well as the photocopy of the Mattogno book, which I didn’t have with me.
R took advantage of the opportunity to advise me that this could be considered “dissemination”. It was not clear at this point whether or not the facts of the case constituted “PUBLIC ORDER” as a result of “dissemination” or not. I explained that I would give the photocopy back as soon as possible.
I have already gotten the photocopy of the Mattogno book back, and will pass by the Amtsgericht (AG) Weinheim early in the morning, to find out whether or not this is a SAFE and quick way to get the material to the responsible chamber of the LG in Mannheim. If NOT, I will have to have to get my daughter, who works at the MA [?], to take care of it.
R then asked me about my „share“ [of the responsibility] for the German edition of the Mattogno book, which states as follows on p. 6: „Translated into German by Henry Gardner; German final editing by Günter Deckert. Mr Deckert places great emphasis on his statement that he does not adopt the arguments and conclusions of the author.“ – This on the advice of two lawyers I consulted; I am not a specialist in such questions anyway.
I remarked that I only even translated about 15 % (from English and Italian) into German anyway, since most of the text was already in German. I also attempted to reformulate the entire text in normal German. I also explained that I neither formatted the text nor did I read any of the final corrections. I would have noticed the many typographical errors; my knowledge of German is considerably better than that of the author.
I took advantage of this unplanned round of questions to present and discuss another application (see annex and/or separate mailing), intended for later. It gave it to him together with the annexes.
R dictated to the court stenographer and announced that today’s proceedings would be adjourned at 14.20 h, to be resumed at 9:15 h on 13 December 2011.
Weinheim/B., 28.11.2011, 22.15 h.
PS: Annex and/or appendix as mentioned previously. [NOTE: will post later]
Feel free to share this post on the social networks below