Franz Seiler wrote, in response to the Gerhard Ittner post (slightly edited by me):
As far as I understand these procedures, trials, law-suits on revisionism it's the following. I sent these lines to the law-court Mannheim, commenting to the [current] case of Günter Deckert......
Comment to the verdict of the Landgericht [district court] Mannheim concerning the case Mattogno-Deckert, a statement, plea of the judge at the LG Herrn Roos, and the Verfassungsbeschwerde [constitutional complaint] of 4 Sept. 2012:
The plea of the judge, Herrn Roos, proves that these lawsuits on revisionism are held without any recourse to the matter on hand.
The statement of the judge Herrn Roos also proves that he thinks he is to come to a verdict against the accused person without any recourse to the matter on hand. This is following a still valid stipulation in the so-called Überleitungsvertrag [transition agreement] of 1953ff that deutsche Stellen (German authorities. e.g. also law-courts) are not to question measures and decisions of the Allies concerning events from 1933 to 1945 and after that time.
If such deutsche Stellen [German law courts] are not to question measures and decisions, they are also not to investigate such measures and decisions, and they also are not to judge upon such measures and decisions. All of these measures are "off limits" to them!
If they demand jurisdiction on these matters they are demanding a right which they do not have!
(This is slightly simplified - for I don't know the terms of jurisdiction in English of what I wrote in German to the Landgericht Mannheim.)
I'm convinced that German law-courts have no jurisdiction on the matters referred to in the Überleitungsvertrag [transition agreement]. The absolutely silly way they conduct such trials, denying enquiries into the matter to be tried, also prove this. So they also do not have the right to issue a European Arrest Warrant for this.