"Jews were excluded from all areas of social life. In justice, too, 
a distinction was made between Jews and non-Jews. As early as in March 
1933 a decree was issued, which refused all Jewish judges, public 
prosecutors and lawyers access to the courts from the following day. 
The exhibition reflects a time in Germany when the individual rights 
and the rule of law were utterly neglected. Many non-Jewish
 Geman lawyers in those days kept 
silent. They did not say a word. There was no real 
resistance. Most of them did not even try to help their colleagues. 
Why? We do not know, and this exhibiton does not give an answer to 
this question either. They failed to act and so did the lawyers‘ 
organizations. What the exhibition does, however, is remind us to 
raise this question again and again. 
                          - Exhibition Lawyers without Rights

Appeal Filed. See It Below:

         Related: How the non-Jewish legal profession profited from the Holocaust Anti-Semitic murder of school children Latest: Background: Plaintiff, Sarah Deming, filed a lawsuit against FilmDistrict LLC, and Emagine Novi, the local movie theater, under a Michigan statute: The Michigan Consumer Protection Act ("MCPA"). The lawsuit claims that the Defendants misled Deming, by showing a Nazi style anti-Semitic propaganda film, unprecedented in its hate, but marketed as a race action film, similar to The Fast and The Furious, or similar films. The Plaintiff is requesting  that the lawsuit be certified as a class action, which is provided for under the Statute, and that the Judge Order the Defendants to properly notify the public regarding the alleged anti-Semitic content. The plaintiff is not asking to have the film banned. The Defendants argue that the film is protected under the First Amendment,  and that Plaintiff's claims under the MCPA are only opinions that are not actionable under the MCPA, in addition to their claims that the film is not anti-Semitic. Plaintiff answers that misleading advertising does not get first Amendment protection, that the Jury is competent to decide if the film is anti-Semitic, and competent to decide if the advertising was misleading. Plaintiff also alleges subliminal hate content, which Plaintiff maintains is not protected under the First Amendment.