BY FED EX INTERNATIONAL AND FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION
To: Dr. Meinerzhagen
Presiding Judge, Landgericht 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
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.
cc: Ingrid Rimland Zundel