This may be the last one I’ll publish unless the interest in them are such that it demands further entries. If so, write a comment at the end of the post or e-mail email@example.com
PS: As always, should there be any errors in the formatting of this particular entry put the blame on [k0nsl]. LibreOffice messes with the formatting a tad bit, but hopefully I got most of it under control.
Mattogno/Deckert, Appeal, Landgericht Mannheim, Day 5, 13.1.2012
Scheduled: 10 h – The proceedings began with a slight delay, since „Room“ 7, the smallest room in the building, was too small for the number of people wishing to attend. After running from pillar to post for a while, the Presiding Judge, partly in response to my request, and in view of the difficulty of the situation, obtained the use of a much more comfortable room in the former offices on the other side of the street – the usual use of the 1st floor involved was as alternative premises for the Amtsgericht and/or Landegericht. – The proceedings were quite unusual in the sense of lasting an extraordinary length of time, being finally adjourned at about 18 h, resulting in a number of preliminary decisions in a certain sense. — Court opened at 10.15 h.
Preliminary remark: – It is quite conceivable that the sequence of the proceedings is not quite correct in terms of both time and matters discussed, since it is not easy to transcribe everything exactly — even when the notes taken consist simply of key words — when the person doing the transcribing is under fire at the same time.
Persons in attendance…
- The Court: usual cast of characters, starring Presiding Judge Roos ;
- The Prosecution, represented by Prosecuting Attorney Grossmann;
- Media: a young reporter from a regional newspaper, the Mannheimer Morgen, was present throughout the day, which is extremely unusual; an article is said to have appeared in yesterday’s edition of the same paper i.e., 14.1.
- About 50 officials or members of the public , 6 of whom were personally known to myself; they may have included bodyguards for the officials from the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution of Cologne, the so-called „Staatsschützer“, or „Protectors of the State“ (= political police); fewer left-wingers than usual. – The overwhelming majority of members of the public were from the metropolitan area of the Electoral Palatinate, as well as others having travelled far greater distances, such as Sylvia Stolz***, Erwin E. (Munich/Augsburg), Andreas K. (Berlin), Heinz M. (Westerwald), Ferdinand L. (Essen). Bernd B. (Eifel), Horst B. + Freya (Raum Cologne), Rudi E. (Stuttgart area), Matthias A., Karlheinz M. (Heilbronn area), and Karl-Helmut E. (Mecklenburg) – Contributions to defray their travel costs may be sent directly to myself (cash in an envelope, if you wish). Thanks to everyone for all contributions received so far!
Presiding Judge Roos began with a direct examination of Hans-Arthur Hertwig, an official from the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution, employed in the central office of Cologne, who gave his age as 62 years old. In appearance, he impressed one as a typical professional „official“, the sort of „Apparatchik“ infesting all governmental systems. – In accordance with our expectations, he was given very limited freedom to testify, so that — apart from the usual meaningless clichés — the Court learned very little which it did not already know, simply from the letter dated 14.12, with annexes. I had a long list of questions but did not a chance to ask anything important, such as his academic achievements, education, knowledge of foreign languages, law, history, etc., since answering these questions would have required special authorisation on his part. I did succeed in bringing 2 facts to light based on the above mentioned letter: for one thing, the claim that the Mattogno book had been mailed to the address of the Cologne office of the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution without having been ordered; the witnesses corrected this allegation using the expression „through covert channels“, i.e., that the CHP mailing list contains at least one informant for the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution. In particular, I attacked the deliberate falsification of the meaning and intent of the quotation cited at the end of the letter, in which a call for contributions to help defray Sylvia Stolz’s travel costs were distorted as follows: [LOOK FOR IDENTICAL TEXT ALREADY TRANSLATED IN DAY 4. – C.P.] “Darin kritisiert Deckert verklausuliert, daß es aktuell zu wenige Personen gebe, die offen und öffentlich geschichtsrevisionistische, holocaustleugnende- bzw. relativierende Aussagen tätigen. — („Es ist leider eine Tatsache, daß es zwar recht viele Auf-die-Schulter-Klopfer als Meinungshelden gibt (hinter der Front), aber immer weniger Tat-Helden.“) The published report on the trial – appearing, among other things, on Altermedia – indicates that Deckert… furthermore weiterhin seinen politischen Überzeugungen, insbesondere der Leugnung des nationalsozialistischen Völkermords, festhält“. Among other things, I asked him whether this kind of misconstruction of meaning, which is on about the same level as reading tea-leaves, was something he had been trained to indulge in, whether this sort of thing was considered permissible under the German Basic Law, and whether this was his understanding of scholarship. The witness was instructed not to answer the questions on the grounds that I was calling for the expression of an opinion instead of inquiring about factual matters. — I intend to take advantage of the opportunity to file: a) a disciplinary complaint and b) a criminal complaint for malicious prosecution/groundless suspicion. – The „witness“, a mere bureaucrat, in response to an additional question from the judge, as to whether any more copies of the Mattogno book had „appeared“ to date, with serious implications for the elements of „dissemination“ and „public order“, could only answer NO. The „witness“ was told he could step down at 10.50 h; there are no other witnesses… – In this connection, Presiding Judge Roos handed me a „legal notice“ under the terms of § 265 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by Prosecuting Attorney Grossman, in which the judge attempted to justify [?] a conviction with [the help of] a secondary construction according to § 130 paragraph 2 no. 1 (selling, advertising for sale, importation, etc.). I still have the possibility of expressing an opinion [filing an objection?].
Judge Roos informs me that the rules of procedure do not permit me to call the jurors to the witness stand, although I can call the Prosecuting Attorney [?] – as I had expressed the intention of doing, in a letter written shortly before the end of the year. It was my intention to raise the question of what the witness understood by SCHOLARSHIP, as well as whether or not he had actually read the book and how much he actually knew about history. Judge Roos asked the Prosecuting Attorney whether he wished to express an opinion on the applications I had already filed; Prosecuting Attorney Grossman [?] declined. – The application (referral to the Federal Constitutional Court/adjournment, suspension of the proceedings) was said to fail on the grounds that the Prosecuting Attorney would very probably refuse to give the necessary approval for such a step. In this connection, and not for the first time, Judge Roos [?] referred to § 130 as „a catastrophe“, as „incomprehensible“, and „dreadful“, or words to that effect.
I then receive the possibility of continuing with the presentation of my defence. Following a few supplementary remarks on the topic of the „Significance of the Holocaust“, I quoted some more literature and introduced some photocopies into evidence, including, among other things, the short edition of John Ball’s book („Air Photo Evidence“, a short reference to a „Treblinka“ claim by the Soviet Jew W. Grossmann from the year 1946 (?), cover text and overview of the content of the Scheper book „Hitler, Germans and Jews“ (1), as well as the book „The Terror Money“ (2), here, due to the adoption of the Auschwitz arguments of F. Meyer, the Auschwitz special edition of the „BARNES REVIEW“, Washington D.C., USA.
I then came to a very important part of my defence, i.e., the numbers of victims at all German concentration camps generally, and Auschwitz in particular. I read out the following obviously “obvious” figures, which are all different (3), and handed the Court photocopies of all the relevant victim number lists, some of them very recent, making reference, in the form of a question,
to concentration camp casualties caused by Allied terror bombing attacks, for example, ships in the Bay of Lübeck – including, among others, the Cap Arcona. I also included the numbers taken from the Meyer article (4). I am very happy to quote from an article in DERSPIEGEL (12/2005. S. 146), which states as follows in connection with Dr. Mengele, under a lead story entitled „Teufel im Barackenmeer“ [The Devil in the Sea of Barracks] [?]: “… What exactly motivated the doctors at this location (referring to Auschwitz), at which 960,000 people lost their lives“….) – Finally, I quoted from a decision of the Amtsgericht Hamburg, legally final since 19.7.2011 (!), Az. 240 Cs 257/10 7101 Js 534/09vom 19.5.2011. The decision, in part, at 4, IV, a, 1, states as follows:“….Trivialisation, under the terms of § 130 paragraph 3 of the German Criminal Code, has been committed when the person making the statement belittles, whitewashes or conceal the verifiable facts establishing the reality of National Socialist acts of violence” (Decisions of the German Criminal Court of Justice in Criminal Matters 46, 36, 40; 47; 278). With regards to the prohibited act charged against the accused in a criminal case, the statements of the accused should not be interpreted to imply a direct under-calculation of the numbers of murdered Jews [Entgegen dem Vorwurf im Strafbefehl ist mit Blick auf die vorgeworfenen Tathandlung eine direkte Herunterrechnung der Zahl der getöteten Juden der Äußerung des Angeklagten nicht zu entnehmen.] Rather, the accused refers, first of all, in a purely descriptive manner (= beschreibend) to the enormous range of published figures for the purpose of requesting a closer determination of these figures on a historical and scholarly basis. In interpreting his statements, the main point is that the accused, over the further course of the conversation, did not only engage in a downwards correction of the numbers of murdered Jews, i.e., refer to publications having done so, but, rather, and above all, his intention was to stress the great discrepancies in the published figures by referring to sources providing such figures with regards to the victims of the National Socialist regime, lying, at the bottom extreme, far below the figures currently accepted in academic circles (4) of the numbers of victims, i.e., 5.3 to 6 million Jews, and other figures far above the currently accepted figures at the upper extreme (41 million and 52 million). This should not be interpreted as trivialisation in terms of quantitative (= quantities and figures) trivialisation…..“ – All this material, and a few additional items, were made available to the court in the form of photocopies.
In the last part of the presentation of my „defence“, I concerned myself with the problem of witnesses. – To warm up, I quoted from the German edition of “Legends of Our Time“, first published by NX in 1968, by the world-famous Auschwitz survivor Elie Wiesel, a Jew from Hungary and present US citizen. “What are you writing there“? asked the rabbi*. „Stories“, I answered. He asked what kind of stories. „True stories? Stories about people you knew?“ „Yes, about things that happened or that could have happened.“ „But that didn’t happen?“ „No, not all of them. Some of them were invented from A to Z.“ The rabbi bent forward to look at me very closely and said, more sadly than angrily: „That means you’re writing lies.“ I didn’t answer right away. The scolded child (in me) had nothing to say in his defence. But I had to justify myself. „Rabbi, things aren’t so simple. Some events happen, but are not true; others are true, although they didn’t happen.“
* The rabbi must have been a Hassidic Jew (a). Wiesel comes from this background. „– (a) „Hassidism“ has been a mystical, religious, movement of renewal in East European Jewry since the mid-19th century; since WWII, it has also spread (among survivors?) in Israel and North America, particularly in the United States.
Another little sample of this type is taken from an article by Salcia Landmann‘s book (3) „Jesus and the Jews“, the German edition of which was published in Munich in 1987, p. 183 of the German edition: „… But superstitions and signs of all kinds of decay do not change the fact that, as we have already stated, this same Hassidism offered the initially helpless, desperate East-European Jews spiritual support of quite a different magnitude from the cool orthodoxy and dry Talmudic subtlety.
On the other hand, the degree to which the former Zaddikim, for their part, felt linked to their poor, tormented people, is testified to by an episode from the year 180o: The brothers Sussia and Elimelech, later to become well-known super-rabbis, found themselves together on a common penitential pilgrimage as young men. On one occasion, they met late at night at a small village not far from Cracow. But although they were dead tired, they felt themselves driven on by an irresistible, panicky sense of dismay which they could not understand. Since the young Hassidic Jews took confidential note, which they kept and passed on, of all matters handed down to them by their teachers, they made a written record of this absolutely mysterious and apparently meaningless-sounding story.
The meaning of the experience is only apparent today, after the Jewish Holocaust of the Hitler years: the village concerned was originally referred to, in Yiddish, as Uschpizim, that is, Auschwitz. The two brothers, out of their deep, mysterious love and sense of loyalty to their poor people in their deadly danger, must have had a dark, prophetic presentiment of doom at this very location.“….
I then quoted a series of excerpts, as follows: from the book „Auschwitz – Tätergeständnisse und Zeugen des Holocaust“ [Auschwitz: Statements of Holocaust Accused and Witnesses] by Jurgen Graf, Würenlos, Switzerland, 1994; from the book „Freispruch für Hitler?“ [Acquittal for Hitler?] by Gerd Honsik, chiefly, witnesses Dr. Kautsky (7 years in Third Reich concentration camps) and, of course, Elie Wiesel (4). I mentioned the cases of Holocaust fabricators Wilkomirski, Rosenblat, Marco (a Spaniard who claimed to be a prominent Mauthausen survivor). All this material was made available to the Court in photocopy form. Reading aloud, I quoted the entire text of a letter in reply written by Holocaust survivor A. Deutsch, now deceased, from Neunkirchen, Saarland. I referred to the photographic falsifications featured in a standard by Udo Walendy. I referred to the trial, held in Munich, which concerned itself with these photographic falsifications and provided the Court with photocopies. I mentioned the appearance of G. Atzmon in Bochum („The Holocaust is an Invention of Zionists and Americans“ – according to an article in the WAZ = Westdeutche Allgemeine, a daily newspaper owned by the SPD) dated 29.11.2005, and my abgebügelte accusation by the local prosecuting attorney on 9.1.2006. I quoted a variety of opinions with regards to Auschwitz eyewitnesses and survivors, including Jews like Hilberg, Reitlinger, Hannah Arendt, Gitta Sereny, van Pelt, particularly his statement that „99 percent of Auschwitz eyewitness reports CANNOT be proven under the rules of criminal law”. All this material was made available in photocopy form. – I then read reports by German soldiers temporarily held prisoner at Auschwitz after 8 May 1945…. – such as the sworn statements of Fr. Stelzel, of Munich; of E. Langendörfer, in his book “Jugendjahre unter dem Hakenkreuz – Begeisterung – Ernüchterung – Erkenntnisse“ [Youthful Years Under the Swastika: Enthusiasm; Sobering Up; Recognition of Facts], in this connection, p. 75, self-published, 2006, from D. Loose, from East Prussia, now Braunschweig. I handed these to the Court in photocopy form – I mentioned the testimony of the Anglo-Irish Professor R. Lynn, that there is not one single reference to the Holocaust in the extensive post-war memoirs of Eisenhower, Churchill and de Gaulle. I mentioned the testimony of the Polish bishop T. Pieronek that „the Holocaust is a Jewish invention“. – I referred to the doctoral thesis by Henri Roques (University of Nantes) „The Confessions of [SS-Man] Kurt Gerstein“ (5), which I translated for the Druffel-Verlag in 1985-86. I introduced opinions, some of them in excerpt form, from the Suddeutsche Zeitung (SZ), Munich; from the technical journal of the „Deutschen Geschichtslehrerverbandes“ [German Association of History Teachers] on the problem of governmental dictation of history, citing the criminal law, which recently entered into effect, against “denying” the genocide of the Armenians in France. In this connection, I quoted a core sentence from [first name?] Höhler, a writer for the Schweinfurter Tageblatt of 24.12.2011: „The new law will not make any changes to the French Genodicide* Law, which is a bad law, an opportunistic law. The idea that Parliaments can lay down historical opinions by majority decision and criminalise divergent opinions is absurd enough…..“ I gave the Court the entire commentary in photocopy form.
I concluded the presentation of my defence at 12.45 h. I suggested a break for lunch. Presiding Judge Roos agreed, stipulating that Court would re-open at the same location at 14.45 h. In response to my inquiry, he explained that a decision on the matters presented so far would be postponed until the afternoon [?] [Auf meine Rückfrage hin erklärt er, die Bescheidung der bislang gestellten sei bis zum Nachmittag zurückgestellt].
Opening the afternoon hearing, he read key passages from a decision of the Landgericht Chemnitz and Amtsgericht Annaberg, where I was sentenced for slanderous expressions in relation to a rent dodger and apartment-hopper. (6) – The Court withdrew to consider the applications; there was a break until 14.15 h. – The oral announcement of the Court’s decisions was as follows:
All the applications were rejected, as I expected them to be: A) For the Court, § 130 was NOT a special law, but was, rather, constitutional. The intent of the law was to protect “Public Order”“. This was said to be the accepted doctrine of law. – There was a 10-minute break at 14.40 h. — B) My application for an expert opinion on the scholarly value of the Mattogno book was rejected. No expert opinion was required. The Court was furthermore well able to decide that for itself. There was one surprise, however: the question of the book’s scholarly value was declared NOT irrelevant! Formally, from the point of so-called social adequacy (7), the scholarly aspects were without importance with regards to the charge of aiding and abetting. Revisionist works are usually rejected with the simple claim that they are pseudoscientific. The statement of the Court is puzzling since Art. 5 of the Basic Law expressly guarantees freedom of scholarship and research, in addition to freedom of opinion generally. (8) — C) My application for an „Examination of Basis for the [claim of] Obviousness“ was rejected. – All in a day’s work for the Landgericht Mannheim…. I had no grounds to request an examination of the matter. The Court was said to be under no general duty of clarification, since it was all a matter of “generally known facts”. The Court also referred to my Federal Supreme Court decision of 15.3.1994. Mention was also made of my „misuse of procedural law, unfair propaganda, questioning of matters established beyond doubt, etc.”…..- etc., etc. – Since this was what we had expected, I had prepared an application of rejection and therefore filed an „application not subject to postponement” [???]. Presiding Judge Roos was not surprised; he had expected this. For the purpose of rounding off my application, I nevertheless requested a written copy of the application. The copy, 2 and a half pages long, was handed to me personally by Judge Roos. I applied for a break in order to have time to acquaint myself with the contents and was granted 45 minutes; the public were asked to leave the courtroom for this period of time. The Court re-opened at 16.55 h. I read out my application for rejection of the Court on suspicion of partiality. ((9)
The Presiding Judge then declared that we would have to change courtrooms again and return to the main building. We waited a good 10 minutes for admittance, since they usually close at 15 h on Fridays. The new court room was proportionally lager. The number of members of the public had decreased, which was normal; the reporter from the Mannheimer Morgen was still there. Proceedings continued until 16.20 h, when the Court announced that it would withdraw to consult with each other on the challenge on the grounds of bias. The 3 members of the Court returned at 16.55 h, and the Presiding Judge declared, as we had expected that the Chamber was not biased; the application (almost 5 pages) was dismissed as unfounded.
Presiding Judge Roos expressed an opinion on the duration of the proceedings and listed the individual procedural steps from receipt of the book by the Cologne Agency for the Protection of the Constitution (via a government informant in 2007) through the Political Police at the Police Administration in Heidelberg, the State Prosecutor’s Office of Mannheim, and the Amtsgericht of Weinheim. The book, in the German edition, was published in 2007. Mention was made of the need to consider the question of overly-protracted proceedings in reaching a decision.
At 17.15 h, I filed my forensic-technical application, after which – just to get tuned up — I cited the responsibility of the State Prosecutor’s Office in the evaluation of a SPIEGEL article (36/2010, p. 155), in connection with the Kachelmann trial This application is annexed to the present report. (10) [?]
The Court withdrew for consultation at 17.25 h, and returned at 17.35 h. Naturally, they said NO. Justification: application for the performance of an experiment was insulting, extraneous to the proceedings, unusual and jeopardised “Human Rights”.
In response to a question by Presiding Judge Roos, Prosecuting Attorney declared that he had a few more questions. Once again, he declared that he wished to inquire about the situation of the footnote on p. 6 of the Mattogno book [?]. This gave me an opportunity to express myself accordingly and to clarify my viewpoint that I considered it legal and proper, in the interests of all Germans, to permit open discussion of National Socialist Jewish policy, without governmental interference (i.e., the “Auschwitz cudgel” of the German Criminal Code = § 130). The German people, both then and now, also had a right to honour and dignity. This led, rather understandably, to an even livelier exchange with State Prosecutor Grossman, who quite suddenly attempted to avoid any discussion of the document entitled „The Mannheim Heresy Trials”…“ (11) [?]. But this was too much for the judge, although he didn’t deny that the exchange, in his view, possessed a certain entertainment value. [?]
He then interrupted with the comment that the matter was irrelevant [???]. The Court adjourned at 18 h.
New court date set for 2 February, 13 h.
The above date is to represent the end of the trial (at about (16 or 17 h) and announcement of the decision; the broad outlines of the judgement have already been prepared. – My response to the address by State Prosecutor will not last long, but my final address to the Court will be lengthier.
- E. Schepers: Hitler, Deutsche und Juden – 262 pages, cloth-bound, 25 €, Gauting/Obb. 2009. – Schepers, a journalist, makes the following statement on the back cover of the cover: “… The author’s core argument that the Auschwitz reports consist, for the most part, of borrowings and rewordings from the Torah and Talmud and are, therefore, at bottom, in all probability questionable, is simply sensational….“ – It does not say whether or not an official investigation has been ordered to be followed by legal prosecution.
- H.-L. Grabowski: Money: Money and Money Tokens in German Concentration Camps and Ghettos 1933-1945[Das Geld des Terrors – Geld und Geldersatz in deutschen Konzentrationslagern und Gettos 1933 – 1945] — 456 p., cloth-bound, 39, 90 €, Regenstauf 2008
- The listing of these various „obviously obvious“ figures, as well as all other evidence with corresponding evidential value, mentioned in the report, will form part of the planned documentation.
- Persons interested in the Meyer article and my advertisement [?] are invited to request an information package available from myself (against payment of costs).
- Henri Roques: “The Confessions of Kurt Gerstein” [„Die „Geständnisse“ des Kurt Gerstein“ Zur Problematik eines Schlüssel-Dokuments“] — 197 p., paperback, now a rare book [?], Leoni/Obb. 1986 – Neither the publisher nor the author, nor myself as the translator, were ever even bothered (!) under the terms of § 130. – Gerstein, even today, is considered in France to have been THE principal Holocaust eyewitness…., because almost all his “confessions”, six in total, are drawn up in schoolboy French [?]. – A new edition will published in the near future.
- In normal cases, there is „no public interest in criminal prosecution“, action is taken in the form of a civil suit. My case, of course, is governed by special conditions….
- Social adequacy – According to § 86 (3) of the German Criminal Code, the effectiveness of provisions §§ 86, 86a are restricted by “social adequacy”. Accordingly, acts are NOT criminally punishable when the „propaganda medium or attitude” serve the following purposes: civic enlightenment, guarding against anti-Constitutional aspirations, [serving the cause of] art or science, research or teaching, reporting on recent current events or history or comparable objectives. – Source: Brandenburg State Agency for Political Education [Brandenburgische Landesstelle für politische Bildung], web page printout dated 14.1.2012
- „Without importance in arriving at a judgement….“? This could be reinterpreted to mean that the Presiding Judge is concentrating on the weak side of the accusation, i.e., the absence of dissemination = absence of the element of public order.
- My partiality application (5 pages long) can be ordered in advance (against costs); it will naturally form part of the planned documentation.
- Since applications on the CAUSE may not, or cannot, be filed, because that would immediately result in a new indictment – see the „Sylvia Stolz case“, my defence consisted of taking the Court on an intellectual journey in the hope that, in the end, the „fearsome spirit of doubt“ might arise in the minds of the 3 gentlemen [of the jury]. As the final gentle shove in this direction, this application was designed as a deliberate and targeted challenge to the State Prosecutor and Court, exploring uncharted territory in the writing of history while exorcising the spirit of the „Holy Cow of Public Order”; the application is attached in annex to the present report. We have no objections against distribution; it shouldn’t constitute a crime, otherwise State Prosecutor Grossman would already have screamed to high heaven and threatened us with a new indictment…
- State Prosecutor Grossman already thumbed through the present documentation during the last hearing. His „reaction“ proves that the present documentation, which is unfortunately out of print [?], is considered “kosher” in the Bundesrepublik Deutschland. – See also under (7) for „social adequacy“. — Photocopies (against costs) can be prepared. – In the meantime, at least 1 copy has been delivered to a rare book store known to myself [?}.
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 15.1.2012
Pf. 100 245
PS: Persons using the present report – which could have been written by any newspaper writer – which can be passed on and published by anyone — as a source, should a) quote correctly and b) be thorough in citing the source. – Due to time pressures, it is difficult to avoid stylistic deficiencies and typing mistakes. I am always grateful for useful suggestions.
Translated by Carlos W. Porter.