Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYAdd to this, as I know from my own experience, that certain penaljudges can unconsciously develop negative prejudices toward the defendants.I had an acquaintance who had been a penal judge for decadesand who had developed such a cynicism that it would make your bloodfreeze in your veins. As penal judges you are generally dealing with thelower layers of society, whose representatives usually sit here in thedock, to express it cautiously. I have now spent a year in Stuttgart prisonand have therefore gained an impression of the usual regular gueststhere. It is therefore understandable and to a certain extent inevitablethat a judge can develop negative prejudices against such defendants,even if that were to happen completely subconsciously. In order toavoid that this tendency of subconscious assumption of guilt worksagainst the defendant, a verbal transcript would be very important indeed.In addition to this we must of course consider the possibility of despoticarbitrariness as well, which is a particular threat in trials like thepresent one, where strong political expectations exist from varioussides. 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. Butalready the mere fact that theoretically you do have the possibility toclaim about this trial whatever you want must make us pause and ponder.I may demonstrate with an example from my first trial that thiskind of misuse of power does indeed occur.The core of that first trial consisted of the question whether I hadcondoned the addition of texts to my expert report for which Otto ErnstRemer had taken the responsibility (preface and documenting appendix).I denied this during the trial, among other things with the reasonthat I had tried as best as possible to keep a distance to O.E. Remer. Inan attempt to prove the opposite, the court introduced an original applicationform for a revisionist conference of the year 1991, which hadbeen found in my possession and which I had signed. O.E. Remer hadbeen the official organizer of that conference. During the trial I statedthat, at that time, I had neither noticed who the official organizer hadbeen nor had I even been interested in it at all. I had only been interestedin those who intended to lecture there, and in this regards I had beeninterested mainly in Wilhelm Stäglich and Robert Faurisson. Apartfrom 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 formhad been found in my possession, because I had not sent it in.101