Continuation of the “Günter Deckert Files”: now the order is correct again. Here is the fourth day and [beginning of the] fifth day. A brief introduction of Günter is available at the end of this post (there will be a contemporary introduction replacing the current one ASAP).
Here are the previous entries:
- The Günter Deckert Files: Fourth Day (current)
- The Günter Deckert Files: Day Three
- Deckert Files: Day Two
- The Günter Deckert Files: Day One
- Deckert Files: Appeal – Request For Evidence #1
Mattogno/Deckert, Appeal before the Landgericht Mannheim, Day 4. The date: 28.12.2011
Scheduled for 13.30 h, actual commencement of proceedings: 13.33 h
Court: Usual cast of characters. Presiding Judge: Roos
Prosecuting Attorney: Grossmann
Media: No one we recognise
Persons present in Room 4 – all 3 rows of seats completely filled; at least 40 people – I must assume the following: a) many of them had some holiday time over the end of the year and the start of the New Year; it was an „Afternoon Session“, so easier to attend. — Some people I recognised: Andreas K., Berlin, Rudi E., Stuttgart area, 1 young comrade from Homburg/Saar, Matthias A., Heilbronn area, „our godson“ from the Taunus and my daughter as well, with my grandson, who wanted to see what was going on. Sylvia Stolz also wanted to come but I forgot to notify her in time…. – I’m not getting any younger.
Opening the proceedings, Presiding Judge Roos announced that the witness from Bamberg had been discharged since her testimony was no longer required. A shame really, since I had a few “tough questions” ready for this hyper-democrat with the “spy on thy neighbour” attitude. And I hadn’t forgotten the old saying: „Informants are always the biggest rascals in the country.“
Presiding Judge Roos handed out the answer from the Federal Agency for the Protection of the Constitution, Cologne, dated 14.12.11, consisting of 2 pages (1), in addition to another 8, consisting of photocopies of alleged CHP circular letters [as well as printouts from the Internet, including Altermedia and Forum.Thiazu.net (Germanic Internet community). The letter was dated 12.12.11, but the printouts bore the date 22.12.11…
According to Presiding Judge Roos, this „document“ could NOT be introduced into evidence in the proceedings, since I was NOT represented by an attorney. This would require the presence of an expert, a certain „Hertwig“ (real name or pseudonym?). For me, this was a new technical concept; I’ll have to do some research.
Presiding Judge Roos then suggested a date for the next hearing. The participants in the proceedings agreed upon Friday, 13 January, at 10 h; the Chamber was said to be in session starting at 9 h, since they wished to decide upon my applications filed on the first day of the proceedings: – 1) Adjuournment of the proceedings and/or referral to the Federal Constitutional Court, KA [Karlsruhe?], 2) Discussion of the concept of „Public Order“ as understood by the 12th Small Criminal Division of the Landgericht Mannheim. – He nevertheless allowed it to be understood that the Chamber, i.e., he personally, would make the usual decision. To do otherwise would require not only a thick skin, but COURAGE as well. But what judge is going to risk his skin over REVISIONISM? German judges like that haven’t even born in a long time. But … surprises are always possible!
Based on the contents of the circular letter from the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution, Judge R considers that the circumstance of „Public Order“/Dissemination by means of the worldwide web („Internet“) have been met in this case, referring, among other things, to the Landgericht decision against Dr. Töben of the Adelaide Institute, Australia. – Prosecuting Attorney Grossman, who had already seen his hopes dashed with regards to the question of Public Order and Dissemination, grasped at this life preserver with visible relief. So we’ll wait and see ……. how Presiding Judge Roos manages to navigate the rocky straits of this one. The two jurors are sticking to their court-assigned role as mere bit players, since they are not trained jurists.
An „evaluation of the content“ would also be performed, which I had not requested anyway, since I had prepared an application for the presentation of evidence with regards to the SCHOLARLY VALUE of the Mattogno study. To give the court „time to think it over“, I intend to make the main application available to the Court, without attachments, a few days before 13 January, but ONLY if there is no risk that doing so might derail oral argument on 13 January.
Presiding Judge Roos, partly in follow-up to my application, announced that I would have an opportunity to discuss the so-called subjective elements of the offence, i.e., my „entry of a defence“. He kept his word, since I received the reading, in excerpt form, of 2 additional decisions, including, once again, the Max Mannheimer decision (Amtsgericht Bruchsal/Landgericht Karlsruhe dated 1998 (2), and the Siegelbruch decision of the Amtsgericht Freiberg/Erzgebirge from the year 2002 (3) about 14 h.
Since I had a bad cold that kept me in bed over Christmas, I sent the Presiding Judge a letter yesterday to the effect that I was feeling much better and could probably appear in court now.
I „warmed up“ with a few quotations, which I made available to the court. I then described the manner in which I became convinced of the basic premises of REVISIONISM – starting with the inundation of the country by foreign immigrants in the 1970. (4). I said that when I was a high school teacher, everything (yes, everything!) could be questioned, as long as it was done rationally and factually… (5). I went on to present a few introductory references to the „murder weapons“, taken from a few decisions handed down against Ernst Gaus = Germar Rudolf, in the book „Grundlagen zur Zeitgeschichte – Ein Handbuch über strittige Fragen des 20. Jahrhunderts“, Tübingen 1994 (6), Anntohn/Roques: „Der Fall Günter Deckert – Märtyrer für Forschungs-, Meinungs- und Redefreiheit im Spannungsverhältnis von Geschichte/“Zeitgeschichte“, Justiz und Politik“ , Weinheim an der Bergstraße 1995 (7), in this case the front and back pages as well as an overview of the content, as well as some information from the Amtsgericht (county court) decision of Reutlingen 1995 (rejection of appeal against arrest in October 1995), particularly, the 2-page leaflet entitled „Why Holocaust Revisionism is Justified/Why Holocaust Revisionism is Important“ [Warum der Holocaust-Revisionismus berechtigt ist / Warum der Holocaust-Revisionismus wichtig ist“], for which I, as President of the NPD at that time, was alleged to be responsible, as it had been distributed to the public in significant quantities through the party structures. (8) – To make the significance of the Holo…/Shoa(h)*-topic, I introduced a few photocopies, including the theme of the Holocaust in German education – Item: The model for secondary education level II, 73666 Baltmannsweile3 2010, ARBEITSTEXTE FÜR DEN Unterricht – Holocaust-Literatur, RECLAM 15047, Stuttgart 2000. I also mention[ed] the [ever-present and ever-]touring „eyewitnesses“ during the months of October and January; in modern German jargon, this is called „Living Memory Culture“. It would be more correct to speak of on-going indoctrination.
On 13 January, I also intend to introduce a few „proofs“ of this type of on-going indoctrination of the coming generations.
The Jewish-Hebrew expression „Shoa(h)“, which has long been customary in France, appears to be taking root in Germany. We are, after all, prize students in adaptation.
Furthermore, to emphasize my search for historical truth and objectivity, I would like to mention the latest Nolte book [Late Reflections: On the World-Wide Civil War of the 20th Century“ [„Späte Reflexionen – Über den Weltbürgerkrieg des 20. Jahrhunderts“], Vienna 2011 (9), which I consider a must-read. Here again, I intend to introduce the front and back pages as well as information on the content into evidence, in the form of photocopies. I come to the concentration camp experiences, including 3 – 5 Days in Oczwiecim/Auscwitz by the Viennese Jew, Viktor E. Frankl (…. Nevertheless, Say ‚Yes‘ to Life“ (10) along with my article from the year 2009 on the „Liberation“ of Auschwitz Concentration Camp…. in January 1945, (8) as well as „Auschwitz Survivor“ Elie Wiesel (11). Again, just to get in the mood, we mustn’t forget the testimony of US Holocaust Pope, Raul Hilberg, a Viennese Jew having emigrated to America, who declared, in the „Wiener Standard“, shortly before in his death, that only 20% of the Holocoaust had even been researched yet. My comment is as follows: “You’d have to be from another planet to keep on talking about OBVIOUSNESS, which is just intended to silence public opinion“ [„Wer hier noch mit der Totschlagkeule OFFENKUNDIGKEIT arbeitet, muß von einem anderen Stern sein.“]
Finally, I would like to discuss the concept of REVISIONISM, with reference to the historical school founded by the American history professor Harry Elmer Barnes, and, finally, the revisionist studies of the French professors Paul Rassinier (12) and Robert Faurisson (13).
Since I have having a hard time speaking due to my illness, which is not getting better as fast as I had hoped, I suggested that the proceedings be adjourned for today. The Court agreed. Presiding Judge Roos closed the proceedings at about 15 h and expressly invited me to the next hearing. My comment: „Of course, I wouldn’t dream of missing such an opportunity for intellectual enjoyment!“
Day 5 in the Mattogno/Deckert Appeal Proceedings
On Suspicion of Aiding and Abetting in Popular Incitement, in this case, the Mattogno book „Auschwitz – The First Gassing — Rumours and Reality“, first published in Italy in 1992, published in English in 2002 and in German in 2011
Friday, 13 January 2012, 10 h,
EU Room [?] of the Landgericht building, opposite MannheimerSchloß/UNI
How long the chamber intends to work on Friday the 13th, is hard to tell. – The proceedings could run as follows: 1) Opening of both decisions – looking ahead, I can either choose between: 1) a counter-presentation, an opportunity which I would naturally take advantage of; or 2) an interrogation of the „Witness from the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution“ from Cologne; I also have the right to ask questions; or 3) Continuation of my defence („obvious numbers of victims“, („eye-)witnesses = survivors; about 2 hours. 4) There will then be a pause for lunch at about 13 h, until 14/14.30 h.; or 5) I can file my application on the question of the scholarly value of the Mattogno study, which must be unobtrusive; or 6) I can file an application for a technical-forensic report, which would have to be considered the first of its kind, but which could be considered as forming part of my defence. This would, in theory, be the end of the evidentiary hearing. 7) Prosecuting Attorney will then present the summation for the State, followed by: 8) by summation in defence, which could last up to 2 hours. Next: 9) The decision – which will, of course, not be announced the same day, although this remains to be seen.
The day’s proceedings being duly adjourned, we retired to one of the neighbouring restaurants for a friendly round of comradely but moderate drinks.
- The last paragraph of the letter from the Agency for the Protection of the Constitution, starting with the last paragraph of p. 2, right up to the end, reads as follows: „The book is advertised and offered for sale to the German public by right-wing extremist Internet sites. It can also be downloaded from the Internet free of charge. The letter mentions a few examples of the relevant Internet sites in question: www.globalfire.tv, www,vho.org.shop, www.forum.thiazi.net.
According to a communication from the PP* Dusiburg, dated March 2009, a two-page printed advertising brochure from „Castle Hill Publishers“ advertising the book has also become known to the PP (reference of the PP Dusiburg:501000-029924-09/3).
On 13 December 2011, a right-wing extremist Internet portal known as „altermedia“ published a report on the current appeals proceedings in the Deckert trial under the heading „Mattogno/Deckert, Appeals Proceedings, Landgericht Mannheim, Day 3 (13.12.11). In the report, Deckert, hedging his statements with numerous clauses, voices the criticism that too few people publicly and openly express opinions of agreement with Holocaust revisionism and/or denying and/or trivialising the Holocaust („It is unfortunately a fact today that that there are a lot of back slappers (behind the front) than there are heroes when it comes to real action. – In the 1990s it was different.“) The published report on the trial proceedings indicate that Deckert continues to remain loyal to his political convictions, in particular, that the National Socialist genocide never took place.“ —- It is instructive to note that the quotation refers to, but misconstrues, the matter of financial support for Sylvia Stolz’s travel costs. I intend to make this misconstruction quite clear to the court on 13 January, perhaps even rubbing it in a bit.
- Max Mannheimer, the Jew from southern Bohmia,survived several concentration camps, including Auschwitz… as well as several „Death Marches“, including the „one from Dachau“… He lives in the Munich area. He is one of those many persons who honour our public schools with their presence every 27 January („St. Holo’s Day“, introduced into law by former CDU Federal President and judge of the Court for the Protection of the Constitution Roman Herzog) by regaling whole classes of middle-school students with their experiences, which are always met with respectful silence. Any questions?…… Not a chance! That might interfere with the „Spirit of the Official New German Secular Religion… – I wrote him a letter from prison (in Bruchsal), asking for a few details, based on a newspaper report which had been handed out to me; the letter got past the prison censor without objection. The fully qualified female jurist [??] was transferred for disciplinary reasons… – A state prosecutor from Munich wrote the complaint for him [?]…[ICH KENNE DIESE GANZE GESCHICHT NICHT, BITTE ERKLÄREN] Naturally, he brought pressed charges legally; during the related oral hearings, he answered all these same questions, put to him by my lawyer, L. Bock…
- Following my release after 5 years of imprisonment, in the summer of 2001, for the expression of an opinion, I purchased, by way of the Sächsische Auktionshaus (Saxonian Auction House) a former inn with banquet room, last used as a holiday home by a Dresden company. The money for the purchase were the shares of two political friends and my own money from the former “Altmark” property east of Wolfsburg, owned by NPD members and friends; further information is available upon request. – Following the announcement of the new owner, the usual fun and games started up again, since the last responsible decision maker was a typical Soviet Occupation Zone/DDR turncoat. The property was put under seal [in a forced sale? seizure by the authorities?]with the media present [based on the mendacious allegation that I had ordered illegal modernizing actions. I then invited the media for an unsealing action in order to prove I was doing nothing illegal, since rehabilitation of the premises required no permit under § 63a of the building code of Saxony. I was then convicted of breaking the seal (!) when I failed to comply with the legal procedures. I won the resulting constitutional proceedings, which lasted over 5 years, without a lawyer. By this time, proceedings for compensation for damages against the State of Saxony were also pending, before the Landgericht (regional district court) Chemnitz; so-called pilot proceedings were won with the help of my lawyer Frank M., Fürth, after which the Oberlandesgericht (regional high court) of Dresden acknowledged „public liability“. Unfortunately, it’s the taxpayers who pay for it all and not the people causing the problems!
- I gave the court my article, with suggestions relating to foreigner and asylum-seeker policy, written by myself in 1976, on the grounds that this constituted the beginning of my revisionist activity, since, at meetings of the NPD at that time – which were visited by colleagues of mine, accompanied by entire school classes, whenever they had nothing else to talk about except the claim that the „immigrants of today are the Jews of yesterday“. This was the beginning of my revisionist activity, reinforced by my knowledge of foreign languages, since, as a member of the national NPD committee, I was in contact with the so-called French „New Right“ or Nouvelle Droite, i.e., Alain de Benoist and, of course, Prof. Robert Faurisson from an early date.
- On the subject of the Holocaust or Shoa(h), I had never heard much about it, either as a high school student (4.0 average in history from Sixth Year up to the secondary school leaving examination), either in Heidelberg or Kiel, as well as in Montpellier, southern France (1963/64), where I worked as a „German Assistant“ at the Joffre grammar school and where I went to university.
- Due to the sale of 55 copies in deliveries of 5 x 11, all completely legal (!), I was not sentenced for aiding and abetting under § 130, but rather, for Popular Incitement. The deliveries were considered 5 separate crimes… – The justification, among other things, was as follows: I must have read and considered everything before I resold them… This kind of legal reasoning, in my view, is simply hare-brained!
- The grounds for the decision, here, again, not for aiding and abetting in Popular Incitement, but rather, in for reprinting the decision of the Landgericht Mannheim, Presiding Judge Dr. Nußbruch, a member of the SPD and well-known Jew (self-acknowledged during the proceedings) for „“renewed dissemination of the Leuchter Report“. In plain language: you’re not permitted to publish a judgement against you made by a criminal court forming of the German system of law…
- The following text taken of a flyer produced in 1995, constitutes the basis for the conviction:Question: Why do the Establishment media and politicians have to lie so much? Answer: The ruling elites in the media and in politics are quick to use the so-called Auschwitz cudgel to strike down all competition and to suffocate any and all signs of a nationalist approach to national policies. Since they are not familiar with the arguments of the revisionists, who are robbing them of their Miracle Weapon, they must have recourse to slander and lies.“ The following words were considered illegal; a) Lies, Lie, and b) Miracle Weapon. – Since the rest of the text was legally unobjectionable, I wonder whether I ought to draw up a new, „revised“ edition, in which the expressions considered „criminal“ would be replaced by the kind of language and expressions used in the Soviet Occupied Zone/DDR of present-day German. – By the way: The brochure did NOT bear the party address, but, rather, my private address (!).
- Many of these expressions, if they were to be used by someone like myself, would lead to a new indictment.
- 3000 copies of the Frankl book were published in Vienna as early as 1946, but were then forgotten. In the 1980s, the Franbkl book made a comeback as a best-seller through the USA. – But you are not allowed to publish the details!
- Even if it is, or was supposed to be, well-known. – Elie Wiesel is supposed to have been interned in Auschwitz… with his father. Upon the approaching likelihood of „Liberation“ by the Soviets, the inmates had the choice: they could sit there and wait for their Soviet „Liberators“, or they could evacuate westwards with their „Nazi butchers“. Not a few of these inmates, including the two Wiesels, father and son, preferred to leave the scene with their „Nazi butchers“; the Wiesels landed in Buchenwald (near Weimar, where Prof. Rassinier was also interned). – By the way: The evacuation of Auschwitz… including a march on foot to the nearest functioning railway station, at Kattowitz, Upper Silesia, is also referred to as a „Death March“; this is the official description of the Auschwitz Museum, Poland.
- I presented photocopies of the Rassinier book, referred to, in German, as the „Die Lüge des Odysseus“ („The Lie of Ulysses).
- Among other things, I also mentioned Prof. Faurisson`s critical examination of the text of the „Ann Frank Diary“.
Note: I am considering to make a “DOKUMENTATION” of this trial Since these are public proceedings, this is still possible. To enable me to plan more efficiently, I would be grateful for any suggestions on the matter.
Looking at yesterday’s proceedings, in this trial, although I cannot be blamed for the problem of „Public Awareness/Dissemination“ over the Internet, I assume that it will result in a conviction. I hardly believe that a professional judge will have the courage to become a second Dr. Orlet. The next step, after the Landgericht appeal, would be the appellate body, here, the Oberlandesgericht Karlsruhe, not the Federal Supreme Court [Bundesgerichtshof], since the case involves a small Criminal Division. – After that, it is the turn oft he so-called Court for the Protection of the Constitution, Karlsruhe, and, even if there is a long waiting time for proceedings and if they want to prefer to sit and wait and hope for the best, which indicates their democratic courage, and which has been their tactics so far – in the end, I will “occupy” the so-called European Court of Human Rights in Straßburg, Alsatia. That’s my intention. It’s important to leave as many tracks as possible.
The publication of the reports on the trial is not yet an element of the offence. Dissemination, even to local media, high schools, associations, etc., is therefore wanted.
Weinheim an der Bergstraße, 29. 12.2011
PS: I would be grateful for corrections of any possible typing mistakes or errors or weaknesses in formatting [wording?] poor choice of expressions.
„Hammer, hammer, hammer, till the nail is tight!
New hearing: Friday, 13.1.2012, Landgericht Mannheim… in the EU Room.
It’s going to be interesting, even in the afternoon!!!
Translated by Carlos W. Porter.