The Civic Platform - A Political Journal of Ideas and Analysis

The “Bernauer Four” Appeal in Frankfurt/Oder District Court: Latest report from the never-never land of “Holocaust” Jurisprudence

Translated by J M Damon

From: Gerd Walther
Date: 4 Mar 2008, 22:08

Press Release

Bernauer Auschwitz Appeal Trial Opens.

The Group of Four Repulses First Major Attack on Rule of Law by OMF/BRD Court, Maintains Its Position Even Without Sylvia Stolz and Gathers Forces for Counter Attack

Trial continues on 10 March.

****************

The appeal of the verdict of the first Bernauer Auschwitz trial by the Bernau Band of Four began in Frankfurt (Oder) District Court on Monday, 25 February 2008.

It developed into a ten-hour struggle for air supremacy in the course of which Judge Gräbert was KO’d for some time.
Before the beginning of hostilities, Judge Gräbert obviously underestimated the strength of the Bernau Group under the Rules of Criminal Procedure even without Defense Attorney Sylvia Stolz, who is held as a prisoner of war by the “Holocaust” judiciary.
Even without Sylvia Stolz, trial veterans Wolfgang Hackert, Rainer Link, Dirk Reinecke and Gerd Walther remained masters of the events at all times.

Judge Gräbert’s anticipated assault on the principle of rule by law came at the very beginning of proceedings, with his public announcement of the home addresses of the defendants.

Gerd Walther immediately objected and was able to avoid having his address being made public.

He established that he was already a victim of “Antifa” (Antifascisten = “Anti Fascists”) and has been threatened at his home by hooligans identifying themselves as Antifa.

In addition he has been repeatedly “investigated” by the Staschu (Staatsschutz, today’s counterpart of the old Stasi = Staatssicherheit or secret police of DDR days.)

Judge Gräbert managed to announce the address of Rainer Link, however, which brought on the first lively exchange of the day.

During notation of personal data, an additional battle of words developed between litigant Dirk Reinecke and Judge Gräbert over the subject of nationality.

Reinecke insisted on establishing that he is a citizen of the German Reich.

Gräbert acknowledged this but disallowed a motion for declaratory judgment, since Reinecke “has a passport issued by the Federal Republic.”

After Judge Gräbert had read the Bernau verdicts of the first trial in County Court aloud, Gerd Walther returned to the subject of who was present (and not present) in the courtroom — Sylvia Stolz was conspicuous by her absence.

He then submitted a priority motion (motion that cannot be put off), which is attached to the bottom of this press release.

The OMF-BRD so-called “Court” then rejected Gerd Walthers’ motion for discontinuance of the trial.

He had submitted it under provisions of Section 257 of the Rules for Criminal Procedure, which makes allowance for insurmountable obstacles to the trial, which in turn are provided for in Section 260 (3) of Rules for Criminal Procedure, namely the impossibility of retaining an attorney.

Following this rejection, the “Court” announced its attack upon the next pillar of the rule of law, namely the principle of open public trials.

The “Holocaust” judiciary is clearly beginning a march into secret trials in the style of the former Soviet Union.

BRD/OMF lawmakers originally created Section 257a of Rules of Criminal Procedure at the same time they created Section 130 of the Criminal Code, in order to prohibit defense attorneys from being publicly heard submitting motions regarding the Bezugstat (subject or referenced act) of Section 130 (3) StGB, namely the alleged crimes of National Socialism.

This is muzzling legislation which requires subsequent motions to be presented only in writing.

This way, the public learns nothing about what is going on.

As the Group of Four submitted additional motions, Judge Gräbert disallowed each and every one repeating his threat to conduct a show trial or Geisterprozess (ghost trial.)

His attack on the rule of law, particularly on Article 1 Paragraph 3 of the Basic Law (regarding public access to trial proceedings) finally ended with a court order to submit motions in writing only – motions that cannot be read aloud.

In response, Gerd Walther convincingly argued that the secret or ghost trial envisioned by Gräbert bears no resemblance to rule by law.

Even Prosecutor Münch agreed that the court should reconsider its ruling, since the public cannot monitor a trial conducted entirely in writing.

The Rules for Criminal Procedure clearly envision Mündlichkeit (“Hearings”) or oral proceedings, which obviously would not be possible if all motions were required to be in writing.

The spoken word has an altogether different effect from the written word.

With a written motion, the accused has no way of knowing whether the court is even cognizant of the motion.

Such a trial held in a cemetery atmosphere would be like the trials that were formerly held in the USSR and the DDR.

In his presentation, Walther submitted counterproposals for the further course of the trial.
He proposed that before the court begins its questioning of witnesses, it should reflect on the beginning of the indictment, namely the referenced act of “National Socialist Crime” and its uncritical acceptance by the court.
The court still insisted on its muzzle ruling, however.

Because of Judge Gräbert’s provocative conduct, the atmosphere in the courtroom was poisoned from the outset, for the entire ten hours.
He continually tried to interrupt the Group of Four from speaking.
However, he had to acknowledge that this not possible in the cases of Rainer Link, Dirk Reinecke and Gerd Walther.
With these three, Gräbert was forced to yield to their “air supremacy.”
At the height of the battle of words, the judge was in effect “K.O.’d” and obviously lost his mental control, falling into a tantrum at the judge’s table.
However, one has to give him credit for more or less apologizing for losing his temper, after a few calming words on the part of the Group of Four.
It reassured everyone that, following the tantrum, a physician was assigned to the court proceedings.

After Judge Gräbert regained his composure he constantly tried to break the litigants’ line of defense.
Seeking to find a weak point, he hoped to smash their front with the question of whether the incriminating pamphlets had been distributed.
However he was able to penetrate only a single step behind the procedural “Maginot Line” of the Group of Four.
The Group consistently defended itself against further penetration with the protective statement that in their trial presentations, the Bezugstat (referenced act) was mentioned one time and one time only.

Toward the end of the day it became clear to the Group of Four that Gräbert was anything but a neutral judge.
He disallowed every single one of their motions, even those that Prosecutor Münch supported.
Unfortunately Münch did not give reasons for his statement of support for their motion.
Because of the well founded suspicion that Judge Gräbert is biased, Dirk Reinecke submitted a Befangenheitsantrag (motion on bias) against the judge, which the other litigants also joined.
Referring to Article 29 of Criminal Procedure, the judge accepted the motion but still continued the questioning of witnesses.
There is nothing significant to report about the questioning of witnesses except that not a single police official was able to recollect which pamphlets were actually distributed.
At the close of the first trial day, the continuation of the trial was announced as follows:

Continuation on Monday 10 March at 9:15 am in:
Frankfurt (Oder) District Court
Müllroser Chaussee 55
15236 Frankfurt (Oder)
Courtroom 007.

The interruption of the main trial gives the Bernau Group of Four a chance to gather new energy and strength for the struggle against renewed assaults on the rule of law.
The Group has used this time to mobilize new forces in the struggle for truth and justice in Germany.

Gerd Walther
(Litigant and compiler of this report)

Important Notice!
The struggle for justice in Germany costs money!
We request contributions to the account of Gerd Walther, 819587-100, Postbank Berlin (10010010).
We take this opportunity to thank all those who have supported us financially!

=============================

A Motion to Discontinue Proceedings on Account of an Insurmountable Obstacle to Trial Under the Auspices of Section 260 (3) of Rules of Criminal Procedure.

According to the Rules for Criminal Procedure, I have the right as a defendant to retain a defense attorney at all times.
Section 137 (1) of Rules for Criminal Procedure states: “The accused may at any stage in the proceedings avail himself of the services of a defense attorney.
The number of defense attorneys may not exceed three.”
An unrestricted defense –- one that is obligated only to observing the law and the conscience of the defense attorney — is the inalienable right and indisputable requirement for a criminal trial in any lawful society.
The actual legal practice — or more correctly, illegal practice — of recent years has, however, disregarded Section 137 of the Rules for Criminal Procedure in German “Holocaust” trials.
These new complexes of “Holocaust” laws entail serious criminal risks for every defense attorney, with the result that persons charged with “Holocaust” crimes are in fact deprived of a defense.
A real trial before a real court has become impossible.
In our case, we have the following situation:
The defense attorney in whom I have confidence is the attorney who defended me in the first Berlin Auschwitz Trial: Sylvia Stolz.
I have confidence in her because she introduces all the facts into the trial through appropriate evidentiary motions and she composes her motions according to the principle “when in doubt, opt for the defendant.”
Her motions are designed to counter the court’s attempt to deny and eliminate the possibility that the defendant’s opinions might be expressions of genuine conviction rather than the result of deceptive intent.
Furthermore she has served as defense attorney in numerous “Holocaust” trials and so acquired unique experience in the peculiar realm of “Holocaust” law.

Judge Gräbert, you might object that Sylvia Stolz is already the defense attorney for my fellow defendant Dirk Reinecke.
You may be formally correct in this, but only half correct.
Dirk Reinecke is my fellow defendant, as you yourself have confirmed with the phrase “Common Incitement of the Masses.”
We four, Wolfgang Hackert, Rainer Link, Gerd Walther and Dirk Reinecke have all been indicted on the same charges.
Judicial literature has coined the phrase Sockelverteidigung (Base Defense) for such cases as ours.
We Bernau defendants all share a preference for Sylvia Stolz, who is also the defense attorney for Dirk Reinecke.
For all these reasons, my defense attorney for “Holocaust” trials will continue to be Sylvia Stolz..
She is one of the very few attorneys in Germany who possesses the courage as well as the know-how to defend “Holocaust” defendants.
The “Holocaust” judiciary understands this, of course, and so continues to persecute her.
It is our belief that our demand for justice can be realized on the basis of Section 137 of the Rules for Criminal Procedure.
In order to deny our demand for justice, the “Holocaust” judiciary indicted Sylvia Stolz for the crime of defending her clients in the cases of Dirk Reinecke, Gerd Walther and Ernst Zündel.
She has now been sentenced in Mannheim District Court to three and a half years in prison plus five years disbarment from practicing her profession, for carrying out her professional duties
This is a unique event in the thousand-year history of German jurisprudence.
Not even under the infamous German Democratic Republic, an amputated portion of the Reich, did such scandals occur.
Was the dissident human rights champion Gregor Gysi ever sentenced to prison during the DDR period?

Sylvia Stolz is of course not the only attorney who has been illegally restrained by “Holocaust” jurisprudence from carrying out the duties of defending attorney, as prescribed by the Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Ludwig Bock of Mannheim, Horst Mahler of Ebersberg and Jürgen Rieger of Hamburg were sentenced to heavy fines, and in addition Horst Mahler was disbarred from practicing his profession.

These sentences are designed to intimidate other attorneys who would like to effectively defend persons accused of “Holocaust” crimes, by submitting motions that might be politically incorrect and unwelcome.
The result is that I am denied my right to legal counsel guaranteed to me under Section 137 of Rules of Criminal Procedure.
This is because all the attorneys are now afraid of themselves being imprisoned.
Every defense attorney refuses to represent me on account of the unjust and illegal practices of “Holocaust” jurisprudence, unless of course unscrupulous attorneys such as Bettina Mernitz of Mannheim.
In abject deference to her employer, Presiding Judge Glenz of Mannheim District Court, Bettina Mernitz allowed herself to be implanted in the defense team of Sylvia Stolz over the latter’s stringent objections. Once in Stolz’s defense, she played the role of assistant prosecutor.
On account of her scandalous and treacherous summation, Bettina Mernitz has been accused of betraying the interest of her client under the provisions of Section 356, Paragraph 2 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure.

As a litigant in an Auschwitz trial, I cannot expect any attorney to risk prison on my behalf.
And as Attorney Ludwig Bock said during the trial of Sylvia Stolz in Mannheim, no self-respecting attorney is going to “serve as a fig leaf for the disgrace of a trial such as this.”
We Germans did not experience such unjust and illegal sentences passed by a dictatorship of judicial terror even during the DDR period.
The only comparable practices have come from the Jewish-Bolshevik Soviet Union, as described by Alexander Solschenizyn.
Regarding Jewish – Bolshevik practices, the circle is obviously completed.
I am referring to the Judaic intimidation that is unmistakable in this trial.
First of all there is the struggle against the Right, which is speciically a relentless struggle against Germans.
Every day, year in and year out, the Jews slander our nation and defame our national character.
In our case, the campaign against Germany is being carried out by Thomas Rautenberg, the Jewish correspondent of the ARD news correspondent in Warsaw, , along with someone who is obviously related to him, and whose name I can provide on request.
These report to their kinsman Erardo Rautenberg, the general prosecutor of Brandenburg, whenever anyone expresses an opinion that is unwelcome to the Jewish controlled press.
From there the case is referred to the court and automatically lands on the desk of a certain Frau Kroh, whose name is also familiar:
Ferdinand Kroh, another Jewish name.
Can all this be mere coincidence?
No it is a central point in the illegal collaboration of media powers with the executive and judicial branches of government.
If it should turn out that still others involved in this trial are of Jewish ethnicity, we would have to assume a profound association of the above named persons.
We would have to suspect a repressive reaction arising from the particular nature of Judaism whenever, in their view, it is necessary to fend off an attack against a fellow Jew or criticism of Judaism itself.
It may be that we will have to return to further consideration of this point of view.
It requires no juridical handstands to perceive that these circumstances would constitute yet another reason to discontinue this trial.
It would be incompatible with any real trial, and most certainly with a lawful trial under German law.
In conclusion, it is clear that this trial should be discontinued for any one of the aforementioned insurmountable obstacles to a lawful trial, under provisions of Section 260, Paragraph 3 of the Rules for Criminal Procedure.