INGRID (RIMLAND) ZUNDEL SAYS "NO THANK YOU" TO GERMAN COURT
May 10, 2006
BY FED EX INTERNATIONAL AND FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Dr. Meinerzhagen
Presiding Judge Landgericht Mannheim
68169 Mannheim,
Germany Telefax (06 21) 292-1314
Re: Zundel v. Gonzales, No. 3:03-CV-105,
United States District Court,
Eastern District of Tennessee
Zundel v. Gonzales, Chertoff, No. 05-5287,
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Criminal proceedings against Ernst Zundel for Suspicion of stirring up hatred against national, ethnic, racial or religious groups and other offenses, Regional Court of Mannheim, 6 KLs 503 Js 4/96
Dear Dr. Meinerzhagen:I am writing to you on behalf of my client Ingrid Rimland Zundel ("Dr. Rimland"), in response to your letter of April 4, 2006.This letter should not be construed as a recognition of any sort of jurisdiction by the Landgericht Mannheim or any other German authority over the person of Dr. Rimland.
After due consideration, and notwithstanding the fact that she would very much like to see and help her husband, Dr. Rimland hereby declines your request that she appear as a witness on
her own volition in the Landgericht Mannheim.
Without waiver, she finds it unnecessary under these terms to assert any privilege provided for under German law.She states in the strongest terms possible her objection to the assertion of jurisdiction of the Landgericht Mannheim over her husband, Ernst Zundel, and over the
criminal charges that have been filed against her husband because of his speech, the criminalization of which is completely unknown in the United States and would be regarded as a scandal by the vast majority of the American populace.
Dr. Rimland, a citizen of the United States of America, finds it deplorable as well that the Mannheim Public Prosecutor's Office is conducting an investigation of her on similar allegations. Dr. Rimland considers it an insult and an imposition that her testimony would be sought by a country which wishes to criminalize her for conduct that is not criminal in her own country.
Here in the United States, we are free to comment critically about persons and movements of any ethnic group or heritage or religion, and free to act nonviolently and politically to persuade others of our views, without running the risk that we will be prosecuted for "hate," and this is a form of legal protection that has long helped insure us against great imbalances of power, discontents, deceits and treacheries, and oligarchy and demagoguery, and we commend it to the court and to the German people.
We submit that German laws which, by criminalizing speech, purport to protect Germany's citizenry against the forces and causes which led to World War II are camouflaging a deceptive political agenda.Dr. Rimland likewise declines to provide testimony or respond to questions via a videoconference link.Dr. Rimland similarly declines to be examined by a consular official or other official by commission, whether at a German consulate or any other location in the United States.
She finds it particularly offensive that officials of any German consulate should examine her in light of her conclusion that German consular officials colluded with Canadian and U.S. authorities for years to try to snare Mr. Zundel in an extrajudicial rendition, which she bases on familiarity with German- and English-language documents released by the prosecutor's office in the case in which you are presiding.Dr. Rimland does reiterate, however, that she has always been the owner and operator of "the Zundelsite," the website referenced in your letter, and I understand that you have already read in open court a statement she sent to you so indicating.
If the court wishes to submit a list of questions to Dr. Rimland regarding her statement, she would consider providing written responses.Request is also made that you advise me consistent with Germany's international law obligations of any and all measures of "judicial assistance" by the United States that the Landgericht Mannheim or Mannheim prosecutor's office or any counsel appointed for Herr Zundel may invoke, intends to invoke, will invoke, does invoke, or attempts to invoke, in order to try to obtain Dr. Rimland's testimony.
Finally, and on another subject, note is made "for the record" of the inaccuracy and impropriety of your adverse Decision on the issue of my status as legal counsel to Mr. Zundel, authored by you and incorporating the inaccurate international law analysis delegated to Dr. Hans-Georg Koch of the Max Planck Institute, which was the subject of your last correspondence to me.
As you should know, Dr. Koch could reach the conclusion he reached only by arbitrarily disregarding the plain meaning of "legal counsel" and then by impermissibly limiting the definition of what is a restraint on Ernst Zundel's liberty. Dr. Koch was prepared, in the service of an illicit agenda, to recognize only the restraint that Ernst Zundel is currently suffering in a German prison as a restriction on his liberty, notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Koch went on to acknowledge that in the United States, the habeas corpus remedy being prosecuted by the undersigned for Mr. Zundel is a classic protection of a liberty interest and is a remedy that remains available to him.
The deplorable analysis adopted by the Court has not served to increase my already-diminished confidence or the confidence of my client in the German judicial system.Thank you for your attention to these matters, and if I can clarify any of the above points, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, Bruce Leichtycc:
Ingrid Rimland Zundel
Ernst Zundel
BY FED EX INTERNATIONAL AND FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
Dr. Meinerzhagen
Presiding Judge Landgericht Mannheim
68169 Mannheim,
Germany Telefax (06 21) 292-1314
Re: Zundel v. Gonzales, No. 3:03-CV-105,
United States District Court,
Eastern District of Tennessee
Zundel v. Gonzales, Chertoff, No. 05-5287,
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Criminal proceedings against Ernst Zundel for Suspicion of stirring up hatred against national, ethnic, racial or religious groups and other offenses, Regional Court of Mannheim, 6 KLs 503 Js 4/96
Dear Dr. Meinerzhagen:I am writing to you on behalf of my client Ingrid Rimland Zundel ("Dr. Rimland"), in response to your letter of April 4, 2006.This letter should not be construed as a recognition of any sort of jurisdiction by the Landgericht Mannheim or any other German authority over the person of Dr. Rimland.
After due consideration, and notwithstanding the fact that she would very much like to see and help her husband, Dr. Rimland hereby declines your request that she appear as a witness on
her own volition in the Landgericht Mannheim.
Without waiver, she finds it unnecessary under these terms to assert any privilege provided for under German law.She states in the strongest terms possible her objection to the assertion of jurisdiction of the Landgericht Mannheim over her husband, Ernst Zundel, and over the
criminal charges that have been filed against her husband because of his speech, the criminalization of which is completely unknown in the United States and would be regarded as a scandal by the vast majority of the American populace.
Dr. Rimland, a citizen of the United States of America, finds it deplorable as well that the Mannheim Public Prosecutor's Office is conducting an investigation of her on similar allegations. Dr. Rimland considers it an insult and an imposition that her testimony would be sought by a country which wishes to criminalize her for conduct that is not criminal in her own country.
Here in the United States, we are free to comment critically about persons and movements of any ethnic group or heritage or religion, and free to act nonviolently and politically to persuade others of our views, without running the risk that we will be prosecuted for "hate," and this is a form of legal protection that has long helped insure us against great imbalances of power, discontents, deceits and treacheries, and oligarchy and demagoguery, and we commend it to the court and to the German people.
We submit that German laws which, by criminalizing speech, purport to protect Germany's citizenry against the forces and causes which led to World War II are camouflaging a deceptive political agenda.Dr. Rimland likewise declines to provide testimony or respond to questions via a videoconference link.Dr. Rimland similarly declines to be examined by a consular official or other official by commission, whether at a German consulate or any other location in the United States.
She finds it particularly offensive that officials of any German consulate should examine her in light of her conclusion that German consular officials colluded with Canadian and U.S. authorities for years to try to snare Mr. Zundel in an extrajudicial rendition, which she bases on familiarity with German- and English-language documents released by the prosecutor's office in the case in which you are presiding.Dr. Rimland does reiterate, however, that she has always been the owner and operator of "the Zundelsite," the website referenced in your letter, and I understand that you have already read in open court a statement she sent to you so indicating.
If the court wishes to submit a list of questions to Dr. Rimland regarding her statement, she would consider providing written responses.Request is also made that you advise me consistent with Germany's international law obligations of any and all measures of "judicial assistance" by the United States that the Landgericht Mannheim or Mannheim prosecutor's office or any counsel appointed for Herr Zundel may invoke, intends to invoke, will invoke, does invoke, or attempts to invoke, in order to try to obtain Dr. Rimland's testimony.
Finally, and on another subject, note is made "for the record" of the inaccuracy and impropriety of your adverse Decision on the issue of my status as legal counsel to Mr. Zundel, authored by you and incorporating the inaccurate international law analysis delegated to Dr. Hans-Georg Koch of the Max Planck Institute, which was the subject of your last correspondence to me.
As you should know, Dr. Koch could reach the conclusion he reached only by arbitrarily disregarding the plain meaning of "legal counsel" and then by impermissibly limiting the definition of what is a restraint on Ernst Zundel's liberty. Dr. Koch was prepared, in the service of an illicit agenda, to recognize only the restraint that Ernst Zundel is currently suffering in a German prison as a restriction on his liberty, notwithstanding the fact that Dr. Koch went on to acknowledge that in the United States, the habeas corpus remedy being prosecuted by the undersigned for Mr. Zundel is a classic protection of a liberty interest and is a remedy that remains available to him.
The deplorable analysis adopted by the Court has not served to increase my already-diminished confidence or the confidence of my client in the German judicial system.Thank you for your attention to these matters, and if I can clarify any of the above points, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, Bruce Leichtycc:
Ingrid Rimland Zundel
Ernst Zundel
posted by Bradley R. Smith @ 5:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home