Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYing to which my expert investigation would prove that homicidal gassingcould not have happened at Auschwitz as attested to, the PresidingJudge Peter Stockhammer asked me whether I did indeed intend to testifyalong that line. After I had confirmed this, the judge merely warnedsuccinctly that I surely am aware that I would be liable to prosecutionfor this. I never managed to testify, though, as this motion was rejectedas usual. I hope that you are surely aware what this statement of thePresiding Judge Stockhammer means: He threatened a summoned expertwitness during a trial and before his potential testimony with criminalprosecution, if the witness testifies to the best of his knowledge andconscience. That amounts to nothing less than threatening a witness bya judge!What finally happened during my first trial in Stuttgart in 1994/95was nothing else than the fact that I, as an expert witness, was sentencedto imprisonment because my expert research results contradict certainwitness 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 historicaldissidents, and worse even: In our case not only all the witnesses supportingthe 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 thelack of ambiguity in their work, which is to say predetermined verdicts.In other words, you, a judge, always know what the higher-upsexpect of you (furthermore there’s a telephone if you still have anydoubts).” (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 confrontedwith a motion to introduce evidence which cannot be rejected by legalmeans, but which has to be rejected for political reasons. So he runs tothe telephone in order to first obtain instructions from “above” as tohow he is to react, obviously in order to ascertain that the politically127 Reference to my statements of autobiographical nature not included in the present book at thebeginning of the trial, cf. in Kardinalfragen an Deutschlands Politiker, op. cit. (note 47), pp.38f., 266ff.106