Update On The Zundel
Mannheim Holocaust Heresy Trial

By Ingrid Rimland Zundel
To our friends around the world...
We have entered a very interesting and, in some ways, scary stage in our struggle to bring truth to the world via reporting on the Mannheim Holocaust Heresy Trial.  On April 26, there was yet another scheduled hearing.  From the few scattered reports I received, it was an extraordinary day!  Please take this as a partial summary because I don't know what it means and can only speculate.
Here is what I was told:
Ernst was represented by Dr. Schaller and Attorney Bock.  Jürgen Rieger was not present.  The two public defenders, who are on stand-by, so to speak, were present, as were Sylvia Stolz and Horst Mahler - the latter two in the audience.  Again, many spectators filled the court room, but the security forces had been reduced in numbers.  Ernst was described as "looking good, self-assured and vigorous."  The prosecutor, Mr. Grossmann, was not present;  a substitute sat in for him.
Dr. Meinerzhagen started by playing a brief ZDF video clip that had been produced by a German television team sometime in 1999, as I remember it.  I lived at that time in San Diego;  Ernst was still in Canada.  The reporters were a husband-wife couple, nice and very open-minded, so I thought.  After they filmed me, they went on to interview Ernst at the Toronto Zundel-Haus, and Ernst told me afterwards that the extended interview went very well indeed.  Apparently, when it was finally shown all over Germany, it was just a sound byte and had become the usual tripe - the theme being "Neo-Nazis on the Net" with voice-overs on just how "dangerously" the Zundelsite was by hiding behind Freedom of Speech.  Many of our supporters saw it at the time, but it came and went, and there was absolutely no fallout.  I saw it as one of those "Let's scare the unwary..." productions.  I remember the reporters asking me about connections with the "skinheads" and I told them that in my entire life I had never personally met a skinhead.  I told them skinhead were fabrications of a compliant media.
This clip was now played in the courtroom by having it projected against a white wall.  One spectator called it "nasty",  two others thought it was the old, insignificant baloney meant to scare the gullible.
This was followed in the courtroom by a broadcast that Ernst had done several years ago via a Russian radio station from what used to be Königsberg, now called Kaliningrad.  I remember this story vaguely.  Ernst had negotiated broadcast time with the Russian owners and had been assured that the contract would hold, but as it turned out, he was only allowed to broadcast twice before the Holocaust Lobby aficionados leaned on the Russkys, twisted some arms - and the contract was canceled on the spot.  Dr. Meinerzhagen now allowed to play one of these broadcasts in full - apparently lasting almost an hour.  I have never heard it, but it was described to me by three different people in the courtroom as "simply fabulous" and "Ernst as his best."  Ernst addressed himself to the German people and explained to them that their government system that passed itself off as a "democracy" was, in fact, still a post-war occupation force brainwashing the public with a false history and controlling every entity that mattered - including the judiciary.  One of the spectators, who had been in the courtroom said to me:  "I have no explanation.  It was as though Judge Meinerzhagen wanted to exonerate Ernst, rather than sentence him... Why else would he have played it?"
Next, without comment, Judge Meinerzhagen read my Open Letter, dated February 8, 2006.  Refresh your memory - I published it in a previous Power Letter.  We had had plans for Sylvia Stolz to read this letter into the record, and we were prepared that the Judge would not allow it to be read.  Instead, to our great surprise, he read it himself - and with emphasis and feeling! 
I am very proud of that letter;  I wrote and polished it for an entire week.  In it, I called a spade a spade.  I feel I wrote respectfully but clearly.  Ernst thought that it was "very moving."  Judge Meinerzhagen read it now, and when he was through, he left without further comments, and the hearing was over for the day.
I have absolutely no idea what this means.  Does Dr. Meinerz-hagen want to juxtapose the distorted persona of Ernst Zundel in the mainstream media with the real Ernst Zundel that we know?  One of the attorneys thought that I was too gullible to think that;  that it was a sinister ploy.  According to his interpretation, the idea is to link Ernst and myself as working in concert and in tandem, and thus, by linking us, trying to criminalize not only Ernst but also the Zundelsite and, indirectly, me that way.  He thinks that the idea is to not only have people but whole (EU?) countries gang up on my website!  In other words, censorship of an American website through the back door!
(See German Embassy Press Release dated April 18, 2006 below.)
Meanwhile, I am still facing the question as to what to do with Dr. Meinerzhagen's invitation to come to Germany to testify.  Ernst always chides me for being too trusting and for having difficulty seeing the evil design of our political enemies' actions, and he may have a point.  At first, when I received that letter, I reacted predictably and even joyfully, true to my nature - I thought this was a golden opportunity to go to Germany and relieve some of the pressure on Ernst by clarifying the facts of the ownership and operation of the website.  But when I put out the question on the Net and asked for input as to what I should do, I received such a tsunami of horrified voices telling me it was a trap and not to go, that I changed my mind and began to distrust my own judgment.  The consensus is firm that I absolutely should not take the risk and walk into a prison situation!  And I know I will not do a video conference if I can help it - I have done hundreds of video shows in the early years of my literary career, and I hated every one of them with a passion!  I get rattled and nervous and fiery red in the face having a camera focused on me.  I dislike it intensely - I know I am much better in expressing my thoughts if I can do so in contemplative writing.
What will happen in the end is still open, but I do have competent legal counsel, and I have instructed one of my attorneys to draft a response stressing that I am an American citizen protected by the Constitution and the First Amendment, and that I consider the laws and conventions of Germany of no relevance to me.  But I must tell you that I am between a rock and a hard place - I fear that if I refuse to answer at all, it will be construed as some "guilt" on my part, and if I testify, I yield jurisdiction to Germany which I don't need to do, even according to Dr. Meinerzhagen's letter.  It may well be that I won't have a choice, because according to a press release that you can double-check on the US-based German Embassy website, dated 18 April  2006 (!), we now get this - imagine!
German Minister of Justice Zypries and US Attorney General Gonzales Sign Bilateral Agreements for Mutual Legal Assistance
German Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries and US Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales met today, April 18, for bilateral talks on German-US judicial cooperation. Within the scope of those talks, they signed two supplementary treaties to the German-US extradition treaty of 1978 and to the bilateral mutual legal assistance treaty of 2003.
"German and US authorities have been working closely together in criminal prosecution for many years in an atmosphere of mutual trust. Regrettably, the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001 have clearly underscored the necessity for close cooperation among criminal prosecution authorities. At the same time, we must continue to be able to build upon a reliable legal foundation which allows both sides to shape cooperation consistent with their constitutional law princi-ples," said Federal Minister of Justice Brigitte Zypries.
The supplementary treaties signed today complement the existing bilateral agreements with regulations that had been agreed upon by the EU Justice Ministers and are the subject of two agreements concluded between the EU and the USA. The aim of these agreements is to create harmonized contract-ual foundations for cooperation in criminal matters between the USA and the Member States of the European Union, and thereby modernize the existing bilateral agreements with a view toward meeting the challenges of fighting terrorism and cross-border organized crime.
Minister Zypries said: "With the supplementary treaties signed today, we are creating the conditions for allowing the agreements on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and extradition concluded between the European Union and the USA to take effect in relations between Germany and the USA as well."
Extradition Treaty
An extradition treaty has been in effect between Germany and the USA since 1978. For both countries, it forms the foundation for the extradition of individuals sought by the judicial authorities of the other country for the purpose of criminal prosecution or enforcement of sentence. The supplementary treaty signed today complements this treaty - for example, with regulations involving protection of privacy. Unchanged in the amended extradition treaty is that no individual sought will be extradited from Germany to the USA if he is threatened there with the death penalty. A precondition for every extradition is that the criminal offence concerned is subject to criminal penalties both pursuant to the law of the requested and the requesting state, and is subject to deprivation of liberty for a minimum period of at least one year. Additionally, the supplementary treaty simplifies the procedure for notarization and forwarding of extradition documents, which has thus far been quite complicated.
Mutual Legal Assistance Agreement
Germany and the USA have also been cooperating intensively for many years on other mutual assistance matters. This might involve, for example, the examination of witnesses, the seizure of evidence, or the service of summons and other documents at the request of the other state. The German judicial authorities have been able to provide this type of legal assist-ance even without a contractual basis; this is based upon the Act on International Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters. The German-American Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty signed in October 2003 by Germany and the USA places this cooperation onto a foundation which is binding under international law.
The supplementary treaty signed today complements the bilateral treaty, among other aspects with regulations on the formation of joint investigation teams, the possibility of video examination of witnesses and experts, as well as the investi-gation of holders of certain bank accounts. These regulations are also oriented to the agreement concluded between the European Union and the USA.
What do you read into this press release?  It sounds to me that any EU country could request my extradition if somebody, some country or some individual within the EU countries  decides that the content of the Zundelsite is "criminal."  And here I am, having lived on the American Continent since I was 24 years old and never ever having been in conflict with the law!  I don't want to think that yet another hit squad could come racing up my hill with their hands on their guns and kidnap me as they kidnapped my husband - but these liars and con-men are desperate as their lies unravel before the world's very eyes, and anything is possible.
Again, I ask for your input.  What do you make of this latest?
Ingrid Zundel




This Site Served by TheHostPros