Sylvia Stolz and the Nuremberg Trials, Jan 26, 2022

Holotruther
Published on Jan 27, 2022
HOW THE JEWS CORRUPTED EUROPEAN LAW (Before 2006): Sylvia Stolz was the lawyer of Ernst Zundel in his trial for holocaust denial in Germany. As a result of her defense, she herself was imprisoned in Germany but we believe is freed ... for the moment.

(Please excuse the multiple spelling errors at the beginning.This is an older video, in German with English subtitles. We appreciate receiving these videos even when they aren't always spellchecked before we get them. Thank you.)
*****
(English Transcribed Text)Â HOW THE JEWS CORRUPTED EUROPEAN LAW (Before 2006):Â Â Hitler and the National Socialists are regarded as evil as the devil. Â They have done a few good things but basically they are regarded as criminals. Many youngsters see it this way and of course many adults as well. The question arises, how did all this begin? One of the starting points was Nuremberg!

The Nuremberg trials were organized by â€œthe victorious alliesâ€: Â The Americans, the British, the French and the Russians. The statute adopted for the war crime proceedings was drawn up primarily by the Americans in collaboration with the World Jewish Congress under the guidance of the Robinson brothers. This has been acknowledged among others like Nathan Goldberg, who wrote extensively about it. Completely new principles were formulated, so-called legal principles which, however, had nothing to do with injustice.

In these proceedings, the victors appointed the judges and the prosecutors. The defense was basically only for appearancesâ€™ sake â€“ they had virtually no rights and hardly had any chance to fulfill their task of defense; For example, they did not have access to all court documents. Even before the trial opened the prosecutors excluded certain subjects and material issues which could not be admitted as evidence. And the defense was explicitly told this. The submissions, which the defense tried to introduce in the Nuremberg trials, were rejected by the so-called judges on the grounds that the evidence was irrelevant. In addition, many witnesses were not admitted.

One can therefore conclude that crucial, exonerating evidence and witnesses were disallowed in the Nuremberg trials. As a consequence, a guilty verdict was reached -- a verdict that had already been decided by the victors from the outset. The chief prosecutor, Jackson, had made it known prior to the trial -- and this is recorded in the Protocols of the Nuremberg trials â€“ that these trials were a continuation of the war effort. That was clearly noticed in the trial! Moreover, this is also noticed abroad: many French, American, and British observers commented that the Nuremberg trials were a sham.

Judgments were imposed. For example, Senator McCarthy said it was impossible to distinguish between the results of the Nuremberg trials â€“ that is the hanging of the German leadership â€“ and an assassination. A bishop said that with these trials the age of barbarism had begun. And in truth, this can be verified.

With these trials, a new era has begun. The era of sham justice! The era, in which measures seized by the victorious allies, such as the exercise of power, are dressed up in a legal framework as though these measures had legal standing. And accordingly, one sees this in various so-called war crimes trials conducted in recent years, such as the trial of Saddam Hussein. And also here in Germany, we are beginning to feel the effects of such trial methods.

Anyone here in Germany who speaks out earnestly for the truth, for Germany or for the German people, is accused of and also condemned for Holocaust denial and incitement of the masses. It is simply called incitement against Jews or incitement against foreigners. For example, if someone observes that Jewish witness reports regarding the Holocaust contradict themselves or are completely scientifically impossible, such things apparently may not be claimed within the scope of the Nuremberg trials. Â Everything that would have exonerated the accusers was excluded.
Likewise, today when a defendant is accused of Holocaust denial, exactly the same method is applied. When he presents the facts and gives detailed reasons why he has doubts, he is punished for it. Because of the defense speech in court, he receives a conviction for Holocaust denial. A defense lawyer who presents evidence relating to the Holocaust is himself punished for Holocaust denial. Up until now, fines are customary but in the future, imprisonments are likely even for lawyers (obviously before Ms. Stolz was arrested and imprisoned beginning in 2006).
(Restraint is effective only as a theatrical prop.) Most lawyers abide by the ban and do not tackle the subject matter correctly. The few lawyers who until now have not complied with this ban have as a result had to face consequences. Horst Mahler, for example, because of his defense in the process to ban the NPD made a comment regarding jewry which resulted in him being jailed for nine months. And then another case, he was banned or barred from the legal profession. This also has happened to other lawyers.

If a lawyer is not restrained by these threats of discipline and continues to submit evidence and make related statements, then he is banned from presenting his evidence verbally, I call this a speaking ban. The law in question 257A (StPO) was introduced several years ago in the Criminal Procedure Code, which makes it possible to compel the lawyer to only make his statements in writing and not to use the spoken word. Incidentally, this law was introduced along with a tightening of law #130 dealing with â€œincitement of the masses.â€

The intention of these laws, therefore, becomes evident. And if a lawyer does not accept this imposed ban on speaking and refuses to be silenced as is his good right then, eventually, he will be removed from the courtroom as happened with me in the Mannheim proceedings against Ernst Zundel. (on 5 April 2006, Sylvia Stolz was physically carried out of the courtroom by police officers.)

These are the methods that are used. That has nothing to do with justice and we will not yield to this injustice! The legal profession is called upon to not to submit to these reprisals, this suppression but to defend it's autonomy and freedom.

THIS INFILTRATION OF EUROPEAN LAW HAS EVEN LED TO THE ROTHSCHILD PUPPET ORGANIZATION â€œCOMMON PURPOSEâ€ ORGANIZING PEDOPHILE POLICE OFFICERS, JUDGES AND LAWYERS TO STEAL CHILDREN FROM THEIR PARENTS IN SPECIAL BRITISH SECRET CHILDREN'S COURTS AND HAND THOSE CHILDREN OVER TO THEIR PEDOPHILE NETWORKS.

SYLVIA STOLZâ€™ FINAL WORDS:THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH JUSTICE AND WE WILL NOT YIELD TO THIS INJUSTICEâ€