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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
Immediately after my statement my defense lawyer asked to be relieved
from his duty to defend me in order that he may testify as a witness
himself. This was quite an unusual step, because during the time
my lawyer was in the witness stand I was formally seen without a defense
lawyer, and this in front of a District Court where it is obligatory
to have a defense lawyer. I do not know whether this was a reprimandable
error of law, but this event itself was in any case memorable, not at
least also because my defense lawyer testified that he had attended that
revisionist conference and that he can attest to the fact that he had not
seen me there, adding that I as a person of 6 ft 5 could hardly have been
overlooked.
In a written description of all my contacts with O.E. Remer, which I
had prepared some two years before the trial, I had not mentioned this
conference, and rightly so. That document was introduced as evidence
as well. In the written verdict the court took this document as a reason
to accuse me of untruthfulness by claiming that they had found in my
possession a photocopy (!) of the application form to the conference –
the court turned the original into a photocopy! In addition to that the
verdict claims that I had not denied my participation at that conference
during the trial, when in fact the exact opposite is true! Plus the rather
dramatic appearance of my defense lawyer in support of my statements
simply vanished in a memory hole! It isn’t even mentioned in the verdict.
In other words: The Stuttgart court lied in its verdict in order to
justify it. And they did this not only concerning statements of various
participants of the trial, but even regarding the nature of documents introduced
as evidence. And this is only one, albeit the clearest of many
cases in “my” verdict. In my view such behavior is a clear violation of
article 336 of the German Penal Code, namely perversion of justice. But
how would one prove such a crime? There aren’t any verbal transcripts!
We only have the statements of those involved. And who would you
believe: the judge or the sentenced criminal?
The procedures in the United States show that it could work otherwise.
There the immigration court tried the same dirty trick during my
asylum case by claiming something in its verdict which was in total
contradiction to what had occurred during the trial. The verdict stated
that my asylum application was “frivolous” (=deceitful), as a result of
which I should be banned for the rest of my life from entering the U.S.
Since deceit during an immigration case is the worst violation of U.S.
immigration law, strict rules apply in such cases, such as, among other
102