Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYImmediately after my statement my defense lawyer asked to be relievedfrom his duty to defend me in order that he may testify as a witnesshimself. This was quite an unusual step, because during the timemy lawyer was in the witness stand I was formally seen without a defenselawyer, and this in front of a District Court where it is obligatoryto have a defense lawyer. I do not know whether this was a reprimandableerror of law, but this event itself was in any case memorable, not atleast also because my defense lawyer testified that he had attended thatrevisionist conference and that he can attest to the fact that he had notseen me there, adding that I as a person of 6 ft 5 could hardly have beenoverlooked.In a written description of all my contacts with O.E. Remer, which Ihad prepared some two years before the trial, I had not mentioned thisconference, and rightly so. That document was introduced as evidenceas well. In the written verdict the court took this document as a reasonto accuse me of untruthfulness by claiming that they had found in mypossession a photocopy (!) of the application form to the conference –the court turned the original into a photocopy! In addition to that theverdict claims that I had not denied my participation at that conferenceduring the trial, when in fact the exact opposite is true! Plus the ratherdramatic appearance of my defense lawyer in support of my statementssimply 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 tojustify it. And they did this not only concerning statements of variousparticipants of the trial, but even regarding the nature of documents introducedas evidence. And this is only one, albeit the clearest of manycases in “my” verdict. In my view such behavior is a clear violation ofarticle 336 of the German Penal Code, namely perversion of justice. Buthow would one prove such a crime? There aren’t any verbal transcripts!We only have the statements of those involved. And who would youbelieve: 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 myasylum case by claiming something in its verdict which was in totalcontradiction to what had occurred during the trial. The verdict statedthat my asylum application was “frivolous” (=deceitful), as a result ofwhich 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 other102