The Website of Carlos Whitlock Porter


Germany vs Porter:






[The document is a printed form with a few blanks filled in by typewriter.]
Reference no. 8430 Cs 112 Js 11637/96
(Please indicate reference in all correspondence!


JUDGEMENT Of the Lower District Court of Munich

In the criminal case against Carlos Whitlock PORTER
For Incitement to Racial Hatred
Based on the main trial held on Tuesday, 25 March 1997 with the participation of the following persons:
Judge AG Zeilinger as Criminal Judge
Prosecutor GrL Fügman as Public Prosecutor
Jr. Sec. Urmann as Clerk of the Court.

The objection [singular] of the defendant against the order of punishment of the Lower District Court Munich dated 19.12.1996 is hereby rejected.

The defendant must bear the costs of the proceedings.

Grounds: see reverse!
No. 484 c / E Stp AGM Abt. 8-11 5.4 (11.94) StP 208 (with StP 137)
Copy of judgement with legal remedies in the event of rejection of objection against order of punishment due to absence of defendant (sections 412, 329 StPO) (4.87)

[reverse page]

Grounds: The defendant raised objections in due time against the order of punishment indicated in the statement of judgement.

The subpoena for the trial, held today, which contained information as to the consequences of absence, or absence without sufficient excuse, was duly delivered on: 03.03.1997.

The defendant was absent without justification, or with insufficient justification, and was not represented by a lawyer with signed power of attorney.

The objection must therefore be rejected under sections 412, 329, StPO [Criminal Trial Regulations].

The cost of the proceedings is based on sections 465 StPO.



Judge of Lower District Court
Certified True Copy
Place, date: Munich, 03.04.97
Urmann Legal Secretary Clerk of the Court [stamp]
Legal Remedies (StP 137)
[small print]

I. 1. You may, within ONE WEEK of delivery of the judgement, apply for restoration of the previous situation, if you were unable to appear at the proper time through no fault of your own. Application for restoration of the previous situation must be made within the indicated period at the Lower District Court indicated on the reverse, stating the grounds for absence. Justified absence must be proven, either in the application or during proceedings to the application.
2. You may dispute the judgement handed down against you, either singly, or together with application for restoration of the previous situation, by means of appeal [BERUFUNG] or Review [REVISION]. Any filing of Appeal or Review not accompanied by application for restoration of the previous situation will be considered waiver of restoration (section 315 paragraph 3, section 342 paragraph 3 of the Criminal Trial Regulations [StPO]).
3. Appeal, in the above case, may only be justified on the grounds of insufficient justification for rejection of your objection, in particular, due to unjustified absence. Review may only be asserted on the grounds that the judgement is based upon a violation of the law.
4. If you wish to dispute the judgement, you must, within ONE WEEK of delivery of the judgement (appeal period), make an oral application to be taken down in writing, before the Clerk of the Lower District Court indicated on the reverse (for Appeal), or an application in writing to the judicial officer (for review), stating that you are filing for either Appeal or Review, according to your choice.

II. 5. If you have filed for appeal, you are free to state your grounds for so doing within TWO WEEKS of delivery of the judgement. The grounds must be stated in writing to the Court, or orally to the Clerk of the Court, to be taken down in writing.
6. If you have filed for Review, delivery may be made to you by means of public delivery through proclamation by publication in the newspaper, or by posting on the notice board of the Court, especially when delivery of sentence is not possible where it was last made, or at the last address indicated by you.
7.1 If neither you, nor, in the cases in which this is permissible, a lawyer with power of attorney, is present at the beginning of the main trial, and if such absence is without sufficient justification, the Court is fundamentally bound to reject the Appeal without a hearing.
7.2 If, in the circumstances indicated above, the prosecution has filed an appeal, proceedings may take place in your absence. The prosecution may also, under such circumstances, drop the appeal, even without your consent.
7.3 If proceedings are not taken under 7.1 or 7.2, the Court may order your appearance or arrest.
8. If you have filed for Review, you MUST state the grounds. This requires a statement as to:
a) whether the judgement is being disputed as a whole or only in certain parts, and whether application is being made to reverse it in whole or in part (applications for Review), AND
b) whether the judgement is being disputed on the grounds of violation of substantive (material) law, or on the grounds of violation of the procedural regulations (grounds for Review); In the latter case, the application must state the facts which are alleged to have resulted in impermissibility of the rejection of your objection.
9. A document signed by yourself is NOT sufficient for statement of the grounds for Review. Applications for Review, stating the grounds for the same (no. 8), must be made orally to the judicial officer to be taken down in writing, or filed in a document signed by a defence attorney or lawyer. This must take place within ONE MONTH after expiration of the appeal period (no. 4).

III. 10. For written declarations, it is not sufficient, for purposes of compliance with the appeal period, that such written declaration be posted within the appeal period. Compliance with the appeal period is only present when the declaration is actually received by the Court before expiration of the period. Application for legal remedy must be filed in the German language.

Continue with Germany vs Porter Part V

Return to Germany vs Porter Part III



Soviet propaganda image stolen from