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

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORY
there can be no talk of an “undisputedness” of Holocaust historiography.
[…]
Sylvia Stolz, defense lawyer
Rejection
Ruling of the 2nd Superior Penal Chamber of the Mannheim District
Court
1. The defendant’s motion for information (annex 11 to the protocol of
the main proceedings of 12 Feb. 2007) is rejected, because the Court
has no obligation to give information beyond the statement already
made under no. 2 of the ruling of 12 Feb. 2007.
2. The motions filed by the defendant on 12 Feb. 2007 to interrogate
Prof. Dr. Maser (annex 12), Dr. Post (annex 13), Prof. Dr. Seidler
(annex 15) and the motions filed by the defense lawyer Stolz to interrogate
an experts for contemporary history (annex 20) and Prof.
Dr. Nolte regarding the motion entries 5 to 14 (annex 21) are rejected,
because the gathering of this evidence is irrelevant for the
[Court’s] decision, because even if the named persons would confirm
the probative allegations, the Chamber would not question the
self-evidence of the Holocaust in the sense of no. 3 of the chamber’s
ruling of 12 Feb. 2007.
3. The defendant’s motion filed on 12 Feb. 2007 to introduce the expert
report by Dr. Hoffmann (annex 16) is rejected, because the gathering
of this evidence is irrelevant for the decision, as the mentioned book
is not part of the indictment.
4. The defendant’s motion filed on 12 Feb. 2007 to interrogate Prof.
Dr. Schlee (annex 17) is rejected, because, as far as the indicted
writings are concerned, the Chamber has its own expertise concerning
the assessment of scientific standards – as was already laid out in
the ruling of 12 Feb. 2007 under no. 2, 1st paragraph. As for the rest,
the claim is irrelevant for the decision, because the mentioned writings
are not part of the indictment.
5. The defendant’s motion filed on 12 Feb. 2007 to interrogate Prof.
Dr. Hilberg (annex 18) is rejected. Regarding no. 1 to 3 of the motion,
the gathering of this evidence is irrelevant, because his assessment
and his position play no role regarding the question of a potentially
illegal activity of the defendant. Regarding no. 4 of the motion,
the Chamber has its own expertise concerning the assessment of sci-
247