21th day of trial, Aachen, monday, september 5th 2005

- Begonia is advocated by a new lawyer

- Taking of evidence finished

- Summing up speeches of the prosecutor

- Demanded sentences: Jose-15 years, Gabriel-14 years, 9 months, Bart-7

years, Begonia-13 months on probation 

(all sentences without a chance for get out of jail earlier)

- Summing up speech of the 

Today the trial began as sharp as it never did before and 'cos the 

judge

didn't wait for all visitors to make it through the controls there was

no friendly and loud "Hello"

for the three this time.

There was more police present then usually and in the neigboring street

8 police cars instead one could be found.

Begonia had the chance to change the lawyer. Today lawyer Schaefer is

present as substitution and from next time on the lawyer of her choice

will there.

It is announced that the applications for partiality are rejected, same

for two applications to hear further witnesses about the situation at

Halifaxstreet.

Lawyer Poell makes a statement about the cleaning of the audience space

during the last day of trial. One person who left the court room right

before this happened was

banned to not enter the house anymore, too. After this statement

Gabriels lawyer made an application with reading a text Gabriel wrote.

This text deals with results of his 

imprisonment and the torture in spanish prisons.

Lawyer Franke makes an application to hear the officer who interviewed

the witness Sommer whose car was the second one used for escape. He

should confirm that Mr. 

Sommer testified when he escaped he lost any sense of what happened

around him. (This testimony refers to that part of Barts accusation

which accuses him to have been actively involved of the stealing of the

car).

Prosecutor Geimer does as usually demand to reject all applications, 

the

first one 'cos there is no relevance to the trial and the other one 

'cos

it it too late.

After the judges retreated for consultation both application are

dismissed.

After a debate about lawyer Poells statement on the cleaning of the

audience space it is applied to hear the person who was banned from

entering the house without

any reason. The lawyer of Jose and Begonia join that application. The

chamber rejects it 'cos of the missing relevance to the taking of

evidences.

The chamber wants to close the taking of evidences. Following that

lawyer Ruppert makes an application to interrupt the trial 'cos today 

he

can only be present till 12:00

and wants to be present when the accuser does his final speech.

Begonias substitute lawyer declares that today he doesn't want to do 

the

pleading today. Judge Nohl assures him of that. When Nohl asks Begonia

she says the lawyer

of her choice from cologne will do the final speech.

The application of lawyer Ruppert is dismissed with the hint he could

obtain all details from lawyer Poell and this is the reason why there

are lawyers present.

What follows are the final speeches

At first: Prosecutor Geimer.

(comment: We tried to reproduce the final speeches of the prosecutor 

and

the joint plaintiff with the words they used. That we could not quote

everything is 'cos

we had no chance to write down excatly every word they used.

It is a pain to hear how they use the suffering of Mr. and Mrs. Schulz

and discredit Gabriels letter. And it is such a poor act that

"anarchists" "help" a prosecutor 

with his final speech. It hurts us to reproduce this so relaxed 'cos 

all

of the statements one has to question. These are final speeches of

lawyers who are aiming

at the maximum penalty...)

Final speech of the prosector:

Before he begins with his speech he declares that something like this

never happened before in his 25 year longing career as advocate for the

interests of the state.

On the one hand the behavior of the defendants, their behavior in court

and the intention to do this trial as a political one. On the other 

hand

the audience whose 

behavior was unbearable and who did a report after every day of the

trial one could read online. He rejects the political motives

vehemently. Regarding this he reads

a text where he quotes anarchists who declare that taking hostages has

nothing in common with anarchism, that a free society works without

violence (force) and

the defendants from Aachen are nothing but criminals. He uses this as

proof the trial is not a political one. It is blind solidarity and no

excuse.

All statements of the defendants were read after the taking of 

evidences

was done already that is why the statements must be seen as

constructions.

Concerning the points of the accusation he sees all of them as 

approved.

Accusation of Jose and Begonia about the bank robbery in Karlsruhe:

To him Jose is the for sure the committer of the bank hold-up 'cos he

was in Karlsruhe at this time the surveillance camera material convicts

him. He can't say for

sure that Begonia was his complice but she helped him on logistical

aspects since she lives in Karlsruhe and speaks german.

The fact of handling of stolen goods he sees as proved 'cos she was on

welfare, but bought a car for her brother and payed some debts.

Accusation of collusion for heist:

Two maps were found, wigs and walky talkies what indicates that they

were planning robberies. Nevertheless there are not enough proofs for

sentence on that.

Complex 3 and 4 of the accusation (control situation and chase)

Federal Frontier Guards testified the accused Jose and Gabriel had 

faked

papers with them, but they didn't realize this when checking it. The

situation escalated when they

said Jose should open the backpack what resulted in Jose and Gabriel

pulling their guns at the same time - this indicates they had an

arrangement on this.

Joint plaintill Schulz leaves the court room crying.

Geimer declares this is a proof he is still suffering from what

happened.

The hostages were forced to get into the car, Jose was driving and

witness Schulz sat right next to him. Bart was sitting in the back of

the car and so hindered Mrs. Schulz

to leave the car what makes him a complice. During the mad drive Jose

drove to the center of the city and 'cos of his life-threatening way of

driving Mrs. Weiss was slightly

injured when the first accident occured.

Gabriel was leaning out of the window and aimed at the car of the

Federal Frontier Police behind them. This was life-threatening to the

officers just as to the passersby 'cos

of possible richocets. Another life-threatening situation occured when

Jose was driving right through a group a passersby without using the

brakes. Only the prompt reaction of the passersby prevented harm. 

During

the escape Gabriel short various times at the car of the Federal

Frontier Police and again it was luck nothing happened. Because it was

not possible to go on with this car they had to change it. Before they

left with this new car Gabriel went to the car of Federal Frontier

Police and shot three times. A proof for this are the bullet casings. 

At

this time Bart had the chance to leave, but he remained inside the new

car and helped convincing witness Sommer to get into the car. But Mr.

Sommer could escape and the accused persons went to a shop and did dig

themselves in.

Begonia was resisting her arrestment, so the arrestment was rather

difficult just as the skilled officers affirmed. During the trial she

attracted attention by her arrogant behavior.

The guilt of Bart during the change of the car used for escape can be

determined.

The attempted murder the prosecutor derives from the firing off several

shots by Gabriel in combination with the valuation of the officers. He

points out that even the officers were old hands to them the situation

was very dangerous.

The missing criminal liabilty or reduced criminal liabilty - there is 

no

hint on that, the experts did clearly point it out.

Moral valuation: "What can be interceded for the defendants? NOTHING."

Begonia wasn't involved in the further deeds, that must be considered.

"What opposes the defendants? Massive use of force, brutality,

criminality."

The defense and the supporters show clear traits of belittlement. Mr.

Schulz is a proof for the heaviness of what happened 'cos even after a

year he can't stand staying inside the court room. A political

motivation of Gabriel and Jose can't be detected.

Concluding he states the citizens and the police must be protected by

court and justice as well: Only an insistent penalty can assure this.

The society needs to react on such a behavior to show that no one will

get away unpunished. Officers must be able to feel save. Political

motivations are just pleaded.

He demands the following sentence:

Jose:

Complex 1 (bank hold-up Karlsruhe): 5 years; Complex 2 (collusion to a

crime): acquittal; Complex 3 and 4 (resisting authority, intervention 

of

road traffic, mayhem, attempted armed roberry, taking hostages,

attempting murder): 12 years; Complex 5 (armed robbery, attempted

murder): 8 years

Overall duration of sentence: 15 years, without a chance to get 

released

earlier.

Gabriel:

Complex 2: (collusion to a crime); acquittal; Complex 3 and 4 

(resisting

authority, intervention of road traffic, mayhem, attempted armed

roberry, taking hostages, attempting murder): 12 years; Complex 5 

(armed

robbery, attempted murder): 10 years

Overall duration of sentence: 14 years, 9 months, without the chance to

get released earlier

Bart:

Complex 2: (collusion to a crime): 1 year, Complex 3 and 4 (resisting

authority, intervention of road traffic, mayhem, attempted armed

robbery, taking hostages, attempted murder): 4 years; Complex 5 (armed

robbery, attempted murder): 6 years

Overall duration of sentence: 7 years, without a chance to get released

earlier

Begonia:

Complex 1 (bank hold-up Karlsruhe): 1year, Complex 6 (resisting

authority): fine of 1200 Euro, 10 Euro a day

Overall duration of sentence: 13 months on probation

The wigs, weapons and the alleged money from the bank hold-up should be

confiscated.

Lawyer Poell declares the judges did already dismiss the accusation for

attempted murder. If the prosecutor now

comes up with this again he knows two applications he could make that

confute this. The first one would be the 

hearing of an officer who testified he saw the muzzle flash that means

the gun was pointed right at him what is

technically not possible. And the other application would deal with the

testimony three bullet casings were found 

what is not true as well 'cos the revolver couldn`t carry enough 

bullets

for that.

Final speech of the joint plaintiff:

The lawyer of the joint plaintiff just made some additions to what the

prosecutor already said. He pointed out the

hostages were not released, they escaped, still with panic another shot

could follow. Mrs. Schulz can`t participate

in the trial anymore, she just can`t stand it. What happened in court 

is

no tolerable treating of the court. The 

therapeutical method to handle what happened via being present in the

court room during the room was no

success. The traumata increased. It got so bad the marriage is in 

danger

now.

The apology Gabriel made to the former hostages with his letter doesn`t

deserve the label apology. Every

approach for excuse is followed by a "if" or "but". Not a single time 

he

says: I want to apologize. The worst

thing is the sentence: "I took away 5 minutes of your freedom, for me

this means years." Even if it had been

only 5 minutes (it was a lot longer, by the way), he didn't want to be

be the defendants on a mad drive, the

gun pointed at him. Regarding Mr. Schulz leaving the court room crying

he states: "Here it is no woman

that run away, a young man, but a man."

The judge asks the defense to do the final speech. The defense asks for

a five minute break. After

the break they declare to do the final speech all together which is

better than doing it in parts and lawyer

Ruppert isn`t present anymore and for Begonia only the

substitute-lawyer.

When asked Begonia says she wants the lawyer of her choice, Schulz, to

do the final speech which

is okay to the judge and the hint is made that her trial can be

separated from the one of the others.

The final speeches of the defense will be done during the next day of

trial on september 21th, 2005.

15th day of trial in Aachen, 06.07.2005.

The 15. day of trial against Jose, Bart, Gabriel and Begonia began at

10:00. Gabriel was wearing his shorts only again 'cos nothing changed

regarding the security measures.

Judge Nohl indoctrinated the audience that it's not allowed to leave 

the

space for the audience to advance the accused persons. Because it

happened two times before, next time it will be punished with a fine.

During the 14. day of trial an expert opinion from spain was brought in

that was dealing with the gunshot wound Jose received in 1981 in a

conflict with a cop. That expert opinion had been translated in the

meantime and the evaluator Mrs. Mörth (psychologist) was ordered to

check Jose for post traumatic and bodily harm that could have any 

impact

on the deeds in june last year.

The expert opinion reported about the state Jose was brought in to the

surgical emergency room in Zaragoza on 28.03.1981 and which surgeries

had to be done.

Jose suffered from three gunshot wounds, one in the back, one below the

heart and one shot hit him at the far right part of his neck - that

bullet hurted the abdomen and came out of his body below the chin 

again.

Mrs. Mörth said the scars match up with wounds the opinion reports

about, so there's no reason to question it.

She spoke with Jose when "his" interpreter was present and did check

him, too. She described what is meant with a traumatic experience and

that Joses state can be described as that. But post traumatic disorders

she could neither find during the conversation with Jose nor in court.

She said that when Jose was speaking about the experiences with the

spanish police he was moved, but she can't see evidences of a post

traumata cos no disturbance of memory occured.

During the depiction of the firing in the trial Jose didn't behave

abnormal, he was speaking to has lawyer, ate and did even yawn. In

addition to that Jose had no manner of avoidance after the firing in

1981 what his lifestyle testified about. All things considered there 

are

no hints for a post traumatic disorder and bodily Jose is doing well,

too.

No questions where aimed at the evaluator whereupon another expert

opinion was read out which was done by the chief of the government

council Milles on 23.06.2004. It was dealing with the check for traces

of powder on the hands of Jose, Gabriel, Bart and Begonia. First it was

said that the amount of traces of powder is connected with the make of

the gun and that after only 30 minutes of desk work for instance only

half of the traces of powder are still traceable and after washing ones

hand nothing at all anymore.

Very few traces of powder could be traced at Gabriels and Joses right

hand and on Begonias left hand. That means it can't be said for sure

that this person fired a gun, but it can't be negated for sure, too. At

Barts hands nothing was found at all.

After the end of the day of trial a barrier of cops set up in front of

the audience so nobody could evade the indoctrination of the beginning.

But calls out to eachother where exchanged and that was good!

A short day in court, but still it was good to see the prisoners and

show them that they are not alone.

On friday, July, 08. at 15:00 it goes on in room 339 of the Aachener

Landgericht.

FREE ANARCHIST POLYKARPOS GEORGIADIS Trial: February 16, 2005 in Serres

On the 16th of April 2004, plain-clothes cops arrest P. Georgiadis in a street in Thessaloniki and take him to the city's police headquarters. After detaining him for hours, the media triumphantly present a police scenario about "a bomber having been arrested red-handed". In the beginning, they present P. Georgiadis as the perpetrator of an unclear number of arsons that have taken place in the city... Finally, they end up accusing him of one "arson attempt" against a car, belonging to a private security company, which was parked in the street where he was arrested. Denying all charges, he states that as an anarchist he was for long a police target. Even the cops who arrested him admit they knew him because of his anarchist activity. Georgiadis also stresses that passing from the place where he was arrested was part of his daily routine, something that the cops following him knew very well. His arrest is the result of the desperate and futile effort of the police to solve the case of a series of arsons. Thus, the scenario fabricated contains everything that would help the police restore its prestige: incrimination for any unresolved case and conflicting reports about him having accomplices, so that the cops can claim they have achieved the "neutralization of a whole organization". The latter leads in raids in houses of comrades and friends of Georgiadis. For the same reason, the scenario soon starts to collapse. The jabber about the "accomplices" will be eventually abandoned, along with the attempts to blame Georgiadis for the ...dozens of actions the police was speaking about in the first place. In the end, even for the one accusation remaining, the cops who say they caught him in the moment of action are unable to present the incendiary device that would be supposedly used for the arson. With these fabricated charges, Georgiadis was sent to jail on April 20 and now he is in Koridallos prison of Athens. His persecution is part of the state's attack against society and specifically against those who resist, with any way they choose, the projects for the imposition of the modernized dictatorship of control and repression, exploitation and alienation. Using the olympic games as a pretext and the doctrine of security as a spearhead, the state intensifies this attack, trying to extort the society's consent and eliminate any social resistance. After all, the submission of society, the breakdown and the isolation of any voice and action of resistance are the most imperative aspirations of Authority. And any success in that level would be the darkest heritage of the olympic games. Against state terrorism and the fabrication of social consent, we oppose solidarity, being aware that what the state wants when persecuting one militant is not having to deal with all of us. SOLIDARITY IS OUR WEAPON FREEDOM FOR ALL HOSTAGES OF THE STATE Open Assembly of Anarchists-Antiauthoritarians May 2004
	Solidarity demonstration: Athens, Saturday, 5 February 2005

Photos from the solidarity demonstration in Athens, Saturday, 5 February 2005

	Την πορεία αλληλεγγύης στον αναρχικό Π. Γεωργιάδη είχαν καλέσει αναρχικές συλλογικότητες και παρά την κακοκαιρία συμμετείχαν περίπου 300 σύντροφοι και συντρόφισσες. Η πορεία ξεκίνησε από το Μοναστηράκι και κατέληξε στα Προπύλαια επιτηρούμενη από πολλές διμοιρίες των ΜΑΤ.

News » Düsseldorf/Germany, 26.11. 2004

Düsseldorf, 26.11. 2004 « Ce qui est vivant bouscule tout pour vivre et crée, pour vivre, ses propres lois, c'est irrésistible. » -Antoine de Saint-Exupéry « That what is alive bumps into everything to live and creates to live its own laws, that is irresistible. » -Antoine de Saint-Exupéry Comrades asked me to write something about myself. I am not a person of many words. But cut off from any kind of interaction, from any kind of human sincerity, plenty of ideas come up quickly. Well, I am a 26-year-old anarchist; I have been carrying these ideas around with me for the last 3-4 years and am living with them in a kind of symbiosis, with reality as nurturing ground. They shape me as I am shaping them with my individuality and experience. That’s how we turned from acquaintances into lovers, still with daily quarrels and doubts, along the conflicts with the life they enforce on us and which we are looking for. Anarchy turned into a necessity for life. I tasted freedom in individual and collective ways, beyond the routine abstraction of the capitalist existence. I can't get rid of this savor anymore and everything else just disgusts me. Every day we are wandering around in a net of relationships between forces, a "matrix" that forces a role without any relevance for our peculiarity and our desires upon us. We have to organize our day according to a crazy economy and a bureaucracy that is entangled in itself, only in order to lose every feeling of spontaneity in the end. With drug problems, depressions we go and see a doctor, a psychiatrist… only to end up in a cellar with a rope around our neck. „Why on earth did that happen?“ wonders the tensed up TV viewer. Room and time for collectivity has been taken from us. But we are free, more than ever before, aren't we?............ our upright democracy kicks us below the belt, every day, but we don’t even feel it anymore. Free will and respect for ourselves vanishes in "public welfare". Everyone contributes by earning their daily bread, which means to crawl on all fours, to secure the luxury of the bourgeoisie. Blinded by a false work ethic we stray through our own life. We don't realise anymore that the world is burning. We got lost in our mirror image, the social war lost every meaning for us. Our struggle starts exactly there, unleashing ourselves from modern despair that drowns us. To realize our own struggle as individual and to find allies in this struggle in order to discover our strength in collectivity. Unfortunately over the years - and this brings me back to my own history - I have seen the dejection in many anarchists again and again, and it turns out to be truly infectious. And this to a degree that even effects their ideas and actions, spoon-feeding old formulas, "left" traditions. There is not much to say about the readiness for battle/the pugnacity of the "left". It has become a predictable, suitable part of the system to which democracy likes to refer to in order to prove its tolerance. Others might be wandering around being lost, because they can't mobilise the masses... - a grinning wink to the authoritarian communists and reformists. We know that reality sucks. But we can't allow it to trap us. We know that we are a small minority... our lack of "efficiency" is no reason to turn away from our horizon, but just another reason to remain critical and keep on fighting. The "hope" is based in ourselves and in our struggle. Hoping for........ is just a Christian reflex that makes us faint. The conflict is permanent and will remain a constant one. And even if it was only to maintain our dignity. That's what anarchy and the reality taught me. Now in the hands of the enemy I see the core of the repressive apparatus for the first time. They tell me prison is a reflection of society. If that is true than it is really miserable at times. To some of you I did already write that I feel like being in school again, because of the narrow-minded mentality and the forced routine here. Hmm, does this reveal something about the school system or about prisons.... If you look at this situation like a pigeon from a roof - it is absurd. When I come back from my hour of walking in circles, the watchdog is already waiting for me at the open door of my prison cell. He says "tschüss" (bye bye), sometimes really friendly, and then he locks me up for 23 hours... good democratic manners. Well, it’s a job like any other. Follow the rules, no matter what they are. If they had to beat me up tomorrow, they would have no scruples either. That's the prevailing work ethic...... after all I am the prisoner here. It is as if, like in a background scenery, I hear the jailers sing: "He is still alive, he is still alive." And I have to think of the suicide reports that are so often main topic to conversations here. Cynicism and fatalism are decorating the corridors......... but it just strengthens my convictions. Prison will always be part of an anarchist´s experience and an anarchist movement. We are doomed to struggle in illusion and to live in dishonesty with our ideas, if don't allow this fact a clear space in our actions and organisations. Ok, I want to close by saying that if you can't find the necessity to fight within yourself, stop talking about it. Anarchism will only turn into an abstraction. For some it turns into a fashion show, for others into guardianship upon others. Revolutionary solidarity, the connective tissue, lives within the realisation of our own struggle, the one of others and the resulting action. Everything else is just civil chitchat. Hereby I use the opportunity to greet my three comrades with a warm hug. See you the theatre of justice. I am looking forward to seeing you again. Thinking about it makes me smile. I also wish all those a lot of strength, who are struggling against the loneliness of prisons and who are locked up, because of their rebellion against any kind of power and manipulation. Let’s grow like crushing weeds through their concrete. A warm hug for all you who are with me. My heart is with you. For anarchy and the end of this spectacle. Bart