Zundel Case - A 'Mandatory
Attorney' In German Law
From Ingrid Rimland
It's a virtual tsunami of articles and commentary of the latest - I can barely keep up posting at least some of them!
I have somewhat of an explanation to what puzzles most of us - just what is this business of having to have a "mandatory attorney"? Here in America, I gathered, it would mean a Public Defender for people who are too poor to pay for an attorney themselves. However, thanks to our incredibly loyal supporters all over the world, so far Ernst has paid for every single trial - every single penny for every single one! The taxpayers of Canada have been made to pay for the Jews!
Just a "for instance": A few weeks ago I got the bill for about $15,000 for court costs - assessed AGAINST US! That's costs above and beyond what we have paid for our regular lawyers! And this is just one instance of, I am guessing, 20-30 times where costs have been assessed against Ernst over the past 20 years or so.
Now Ernst is in prison, and those bills come to me. This last bill, too, has been paid.
Let this sink in: the Jewish attorneys of the government of Canada got paid BY US for OPPOSING US in the Supreme Court when Ernst applied for what is called "leave" - meaning permission to get the highest court in Canada to look at what was done so criminally and brazenly to Ernst! And this after the Court turned us down!
So no wonder that many people might need a "Public Defender" at taxpayers' expense. However, to my knowledge, NEVER EVER has Ernst resorted to such a solution!
That's why the "mandatory attorney" was such a puzzle to me, especially since I knew we had four attorneys of our own in Germany alone - [for the censors: That's Rieger, Stolz, Schaller and, I believe, an attorney named Bock - NOT Mahler!] some of whom are working pro bono, and most of whom are not being paid what we and they know they deserve to be paid!
Why, then, another "mandatory" attorney?
Below is one good commentary from someone I don't even know:
I refer to your mistrial news. I am not a lawyer and not qualified for legal advice, but I have some practical experience with the legal system in the BRD (Germany) and I studied law two semester or so.
The mandatory attorney is what can be called lead attorney or attorney in charge. "Mandatory" means that any defendant under the criminal code or under the legal code (for a dispute above a certain financial threshold) is obliged to be represented by a qualified legal professional, i.e. a barred lawyer. Mandatory means it is not possible for the defendant to represent him or herself or rejects to defend at all. If this would happen and the defendant does not arrange for a lawyer, the court will appoint the attorney (hence mandatory/obligatory attorney or Pflichtverteidiger). However this is a rare and theoretical situation and I do not know that this ever happened in any trial against the will of the defendant. It is definitely not part of the beginning of any normal lawsuit.
The defendant has a right to choose his attorney as long as he or she is properly barred.
Horst Mahler's attorney license revocation is pending (because of some political trials), I would guess that the judge can actually drop him for formal reasons, even if he only acts as assistant.
Herbert Schaller is an Austrian, I am not sure if he can act in Germany as mandatory attorney. He cannot be dropped for being too old. Theoretically the judge would need to attest some kind of medical problem or disability and come up with a formal examination.
Jürgen Rieger has never been dropped before, though it is true that he was indicted for some thought offense. In my opinion he still can act as attorney because he is still barred and no unbarring has ever been attempted to my knowledge.
The rejection of Sylvia Stolz is outrageous. There is nothing in her past I know of, and the judge cannot proclaim that she is influenced by Horst Mahler without providing any evidence or structured statement. She is now virtually destroyed in her profession and reputation. If she did anything that can be interpreted as an offending comment (I doubt it is offending, maybe rude), then usually this only justifies some minor warning not to do this again (like a yellow card in football), in particular because of her clean past.
I don't know much about the lawsuit procedure law, any attorney however should. But I would guess a judge cannot reject the defense on his own. If he does, this step would need to be confirmed and examined by the next higher court until it becomes a verdict. Any such procedure would take considerable time, in particular because such things never happened before. I believe Ernst should appeal this decision, in particular to delay the lawsuit and hope it takes longer than one year.
I hope my English is good enough and I also hope you get better responses from qualified legal professionals. In my opinion , everything should be attempted to continue with Sylvia Stolz and of course to support this remarkable and brave person.



This Site Served by TheHostPros