Germar Rudolf, Resistance Is Obligatory (2012; PDF-Datei

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
Add to this, as I know from my own experience, that certain penal
judges can unconsciously develop negative prejudices toward the defendants.
I had an acquaintance who had been a penal judge for decades
and who had developed such a cynicism that it would make your blood
freeze in your veins. As penal judges you are generally dealing with the
lower layers of society, whose representatives usually sit here in the
dock, to express it cautiously. I have now spent a year in Stuttgart prison
and have therefore gained an impression of the usual regular guests
there. It is therefore understandable and to a certain extent inevitable
that a judge can develop negative prejudices against such defendants,
even if that were to happen completely subconsciously. In order to
avoid that this tendency of subconscious assumption of guilt works
against the defendant, a verbal transcript would be very important indeed.
In addition to this we must of course consider the possibility of despotic
arbitrariness as well, which is a particular threat in trials like the
present one, where strong political expectations exist from various
sides. I do not want to make any imputation about you in this regard,
since I do not yet know what you will finally write in your verdict. But
already the mere fact that theoretically you do have the possibility to
claim about this trial whatever you want must make us pause and ponder.
I may demonstrate with an example from my first trial that this
kind of misuse of power does indeed occur.
The core of that first trial consisted of the question whether I had
condoned the addition of texts to my expert report for which Otto Ernst
Remer had taken the responsibility (preface and documenting appendix).
I denied this during the trial, among other things with the reason
that I had tried as best as possible to keep a distance to O.E. Remer. In
an attempt to prove the opposite, the court introduced an original application
form for a revisionist conference of the year 1991, which had
been found in my possession and which I had signed. O.E. Remer had
been the official organizer of that conference. During the trial I stated
that, at that time, I had neither noticed who the official organizer had
been nor had I even been interested in it at all. I had only been interested
in those who intended to lecture there, and in this regards I had been
interested mainly in Wilhelm Stäglich and Robert Faurisson. Apart
from that I also pointed out that I had not participated in that conference,
which was also proven by the fact that the original of that form
had been found in my possession, because I had not sent it in.
101