We continue the postings of the “Günter Deckert Files”.
- Deckert Files: Appeal – Request For Evidence #1
- Deckert Files: Day Two
- The Günter Deckert Files: Day Three
- The Günter Deckert Files: Day One (current)
MATTOGNO/DECKERT, Appeal, Landgericht (Landgericht) Mannheim
The “German System” versus Günter Deckert for aiding and abetting in “Popular Incitement“ under § 130 of the German Criminal Code for helping to edit the German version of edition of Carlo Mattogno’s “Auschwitz – The First Gassing — Rumours and Reality“, CHP, Hastings, England
Day 1. The date: 14.11.2011
Scheduled for 13.30 h, the hearing actually began somewhat later due to traffic jams caused by an accident on the highway to Mannheim.
No police visible either inside or outside the building, not even plain clothesmen! – No access controls, in contrast to the trials of Zündel, Rudolf and Sylvia Stolz.
No sheriff’s officers in the courtroom.
Room 2 (completely full, with about 30 people in attendance; most of them from the vicinity of Mannheim. From further away: Sylvia Stolz, attorney at law, as well as comrades from the Kassel and Eifel areas with Fre…) [?]. –
No media presence, not even MM [?] provocateur Mack.
12th Small Criminal Division (1) – Presiding Landgericht Judges Roos), mid-40s, „very affable….“and as jurors Wolfgang Wernet and Helmut Mehrer, both of them [?] over retirement age (65 +). – Representing the “State” was Prosecutor Grossmann.
The proceedings were opened by Landgericht Judge Roos at 13.40 h, with a reading of the main points of the Weinheim Amtsgericht (Amtsgericht) decision of 28.7.2010.
I then presented by resume, a photocopy of which was later made available to all members of the Court, introduced into evidence as “knowledge made available to the Court and Prosecutor but not the public”: a new experience for me.
I then filed the following 3 applications, one after another:
- Application for suspension or adjournment of the proceedings pending a decision of the Federal Constitutional Court, Karlsruhe, on the question of whether, and, if so, to what extent, § 130 of the German Criminal Code is compatible with the Basic Law, particularly Articles 5 of the Basic Law and Article 103 paragraph 2 of the Basic Law. – I introduced the written text, after which the court withdrew for initial consultation. – Return to the courtroom after about 10 minutes; announcement by the Presiding Judge that a decision in the matter would be made later (2).
- Application for adjournment of the proceedings (for lack of impartiality, particularly the two jurors) due to the currently prejudicial mood of the public due to excessive media coverage of the „Brown Army Fraction“ (front-page lead story of today’s “Spiegel”) and scheduling of a new hearing after the New Year. – Following introduction of the written version the chamber withdrew for consultation, returning about 10 minutes, announcing their rejection of the application on the grounds that the court was allegedly unprejudiced.
- Application for discussion of the fundamental principles underlying the attitude of the Court as to the OBVIOUSNESS of the set of facts generally referred to, since the 1970s, as the “Holocaust“. – Following my introduction of the written text the Presiding Judge declared that no more decisions would be made at today’s session.
- There then followed the interrogation of the witness Bernstorf of the “State Security Heidelberg“, who had worked on the drawn up the investigation proceedings. – Bernstorf briefly described the circumstances under which a copy of the Mattogno book was discovered at the Verfassungsschutzamt, [Agency for the Protection of the Constitution] in Cologne, after which another copy was discovered in a mail box in Bamberg. Legal proceedings were brought against myself following a search of my dwelling in May of last year, with the consequent discovery of a specimen copy and “corrected copy“ of the same book (“corrected”, that is, by a German living in England, who committed numerous typographical errors [die die fehlen Druckfehler bemängelte] [???] and published it without a return address). The witness Bernstorf furthermore testified that the agency had been unable to determine, despite their most zealous efforts, including, among other things, interrogations of book dealers and wholesalers, whether any further copies had been found anywhere. This testimony is important for a determination of the „Public/Dissemination“ element of the offence, since the book delivered by the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution could not be considered a forming part of the “Public”. [?]
- Presiding Judge Roos [?] furthermore ordered the introduction of the following documents as „knowledge made available to the Court and Prosecutor but not the public“ and distributed them to all members of the Court as well the members of the State Prosecutor’s Office. — a) all written applications filed with the exception of 2); b) my resume (4), c) decision (3) of the Landgericht Mannheim dated 22 June 1994, the so-called Orlet(-Müller) Decision in the Matter of Fred Leuchter, d) Decision of the Amtsgericht Reutlingen dated 7 July 1995 for “Popular Incitement”, d) Decision of the Landgericht Mannheim dated 17.4.1996 on suspicion of defamation…, e) Decision of the Landgericht Mannheim dated 2011.1998 (while the defendant [Deckert] was in prison at Bruchsal) on suspicion of defamation, etc., f) Decision of the Amtsgericht Weinheim dated 6.2.2003 for Popular Incitement…
- After which, at 16 h, the Presiding Judge adjourned today’s proceedings until 28 13.30 h
ANYONE interested in these applications should contact me. I have archived most of them [electronically].
Weinheim/B., 14 November 2011, 19.30 h
PS: Got back at 18.30 h. The defence team met in a small group, including Sylvia Stolz, to discuss the day’s proceedings.
Translated by Carlos W. Porter.