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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
ing to which my expert investigation would prove that homicidal gassing
could not have happened at Auschwitz as attested to, the Presiding
Judge Peter Stockhammer asked me whether I did indeed intend to testify
along that line. After I had confirmed this, the judge merely warned
succinctly that I surely am aware that I would be liable to prosecution
for this. I never managed to testify, though, as this motion was rejected
as usual. I hope that you are surely aware what this statement of the
Presiding Judge Stockhammer means: He threatened a summoned expert
witness during a trial and before his potential testimony with criminal
prosecution, if the witness testifies to the best of his knowledge and
conscience. That amounts to nothing less than threatening a witness by
a judge!
What finally happened during my first trial in Stuttgart in 1994/95
was nothing else than the fact that I, as an expert witness, was sentenced
to imprisonment because my expert research results contradict certain
witness statements.
The next quote is from the next page:
“Defense witnesses were not permitted to testify.” (1/351)
That, too, has a perfect parallel in German trials against historical
dissidents, and worse even: In our case not only all the witnesses supporting
the views of the defendant are rejected, but all kinds of evidence,
be they witnesses, documents, or experts. The so-called “selfevidence”
enables German courts to simply reject all evidence.
The next quote reads:
“The second main characteristic of our political courts is the
lack of ambiguity in their work, which is to say predetermined verdicts.
In other words, you, a judge, always know what the higher-ups
expect of you (furthermore there’s a telephone if you still have any
doubts).” (1/288f.)
That, too, is a reliable component of German trials against dissidents,
as I know from my own experience and as I have related earlier.
127 A judge suddenly interrupts the trial, because he is confronted
with a motion to introduce evidence which cannot be rejected by legal
means, but which has to be rejected for political reasons. So he runs to
the telephone in order to first obtain instructions from “above” as to
how he is to react, obviously in order to ascertain that the politically
127 Reference to my statements of autobiographical nature not included in the present book at the
beginning of the trial, cf. in Kardinalfragen an Deutschlands Politiker, op. cit. (note 47), pp.
38f., 266ff.
106