This is the continuance of:
A brief introduction of Günter Deckert is available at the end of this entry.
Mattogno/Deckert, Appeal Proceedings, LG Mannheim, Day 3, 13.12.2011
Scheduled for 9.15 h, the proceedings actually began at 9.20 h, this time in Room 5.
The Court, a small Criminal Division, same cast of characters (Presiding Judge Roos);
Prosecuting Attorney Grossmann;
Media: 1 male, about 30 years old; identity unknown;
15 members of the public; the small number of persons present is probably due to the early starting time. For this reason, there was only 1 additional person present: Andreas K., Berlin.
Starting the proceedings, Judge Roos (R) announced that he had been sick over the weekend and had therefore had little time for preparation; the session would not therefore last long. He furthermore announced that he had written a letter to the „Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution“ (VS), Cologne (1) to obtain a concrete determination of how many copies of the Mattogno book had actually, or were alleged to have, been distributed in Germany. He also intended to call the CSU Lecturer from Bamberg as a witness for the purpose of determining how the Mattogno book arrived in her mail box. – I intend to let him know that this would be a complete waste of time since the lady could say no more than what she had already told the police in Bamberger; her statement is in the file.
The Judge then suggested the date for the next hearing, which was set for Wednesday, 28. December, 13.30 h.
I pointed out that at least one more hearing must be scheduled for the beginning of January, since I had thus far been unable to begin my “Plea in Defence”.
R then began to discuss my career background and briefly reviewed a few facts, announcing that he obtain more information about my current financial situation (2).
He then considered my previous convictions since the year 1991 (3); according to the state of the file (German criminal record), the number of convictions was supposed to add up to 13. – With regards to the “Public Nature of the Proceedings”, I insisted upon a reading of the grounds for the convictions, which is not always forthcoming with this judge, so that, in view of the situation, I felt understandably compelled to “intervene” for purposes of clarification. Nor was it at all clear whether or not I would be permitted to make a statement with regards to each conviction or in relation to them all at the end of the reading.
A lively exchange then ensued with Prosecuting Attorney Grossman in this connection.
- Reminder! The number of „copies having appeared“ is very important. Failure to prove dissemination, in this case, that is, several copies, must result in acquittal.
- It is possible that he is looking for a compromise, i.e., a fine instead of a suspended sentence.
- All my convictions have a political background, most of them based on § 130, as well as „Defamation“. Even the Saxony judgements (Freiberg, Chemnitz) in connection with the reorganisation of the “Erzgebirge House” were fundamentally political.
A note in conclusion – I wish to extend my heartfelt thanks to all those who reacted „positively“ to notice of today’s hearing (under the heading of “Sylvia Stolz”). It is unfortunately a fact that a lot of people are prepared to give you a pat on the back far from the front lines, but there are few heroes where deeds are concerned. – This was not so true in the 1990s.
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 13 December 2011
Feel free to share this post on the social networks below