Resistance

GERMAR RUDOLF, RESISTANCE IS OBLIGATORYthere can be no talk of an “undisputedness” of Holocaust historiography.[…]Sylvia Stolz, defense lawyerRejectionRuling of the 2nd Superior Penal Chamber of the Mannheim DistrictCourt1. The defendant’s motion for information (annex 11 to the protocol ofthe main proceedings of 12 Feb. 2007) is rejected, because the Courthas no obligation to give information beyond the statement alreadymade under no. 2 of the ruling of 12 Feb. 2007.2. The motions filed by the defendant on 12 Feb. 2007 to interrogateProf. Dr. Maser (annex 12), Dr. Post (annex 13), Prof. Dr. Seidler(annex 15) and the motions filed by the defense lawyer Stolz to interrogatean 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 confirmthe probative allegations, the Chamber would not question theself-evidence of the Holocaust in the sense of no. 3 of the chamber’sruling of 12 Feb. 2007.3. The defendant’s motion filed on 12 Feb. 2007 to introduce the expertreport by Dr. Hoffmann (annex 16) is rejected, because the gatheringof this evidence is irrelevant for the decision, as the mentioned bookis 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 indictedwritings are concerned, the Chamber has its own expertise concerningthe assessment of scientific standards – as was already laid out inthe ruling of 12 Feb. 2007 under no. 2, 1st paragraph. As for the rest,the claim is irrelevant for the decision, because the mentioned writingsare 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 assessmentand his position play no role regarding the question of a potentiallyillegal activity of the defendant. Regarding no. 4 of the motion,the Chamber has its own expertise concerning the assessment of sci-247