Q Well, did you object to the fact that he as presiding judge -
A MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, might we ask for a clarification of what is meant by the word "application". A moment ago it was stated that a directive was made that there should be no variance between an application and a sentence. Now, I can't think what an appplication could be unless it was either the indictment of the prosecutor, or the plea; one of the two.
THE PRESIDENT: The Prosecution has asked to know what you mean by the work "application", and I think it is proper that he should have an answer to that. what do you mean by the word "application".
JUDGE BRAND: Witness, didn't you mean to say that the sentence and the pleas of the prosecution should coincide; in other words, that the request for a sentence and the sentence should be the same?
A Yes.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q May I continue. You objected that Rothaug determined the time of the trial himself independently; that he decided what judges were to sit on a trial; that he determined who should write the opinion; that furthermore, decisions of the Court, written decisions, that he had them written out and that he had them signed. Please answer the question. Did Rothaug in so doing fulfill his task as presiding judge, or did he exceed them?
A No, he did not exceed them.
Q What did it mean if a decision of a court was made out and an associate judge was supposed to sign it. Could this associate judge also in this trial make any objections if he did not agree to this decision?
A Then, in the case of Rothaug the written decision had to be returned with objections.
Q Was that in accordance with the general practice in all German courts or was that an exceptional case in Nurnberg.
AAn exceptional case? It isn't either in itself.
Q Now, I want to come to the Katzenberger case. When did you, witness, for the first time find out that Katzenberger had been denounced, and in what position were you at the time?
A From the first of July, 1941, I was presiding judge of the Penal Chamber. Frau Seiler was on the 9th of July put under oath. Therefore, I must have been concerned as early as June 1941. What indictment was written by Herr Markl and directed to the Penal Chamber against Herr Katzenberger and enclosed, attached was an application to release him from imprisonment, or complained that he was imprisoned; I don't remember exactly which one.
Q From whom did you receive or from whom did the Public Prosecution get the case Katzenberger?
A I know from Herr Markl the Public Prosecutor, and from my own knowledge of the files that the case was submitted by the criminal police in Nurnberg.
Q In the case Katzenberger had there also been an investigating judge, Herr Groben?
A Herr Groben.
Q Could Herr Groben on his own competence, could Katzenberger have been freed from his arrest on his own initiative, or did it Public Prosecutor have to agree?
A The procedural rules provide that the judge in charge of the imprisonment, before he gives the order to have the prisoner released, that he listen to the Public Prosecution.
Q Can the investigating judge also without the agree ment of the Public Prosecution dismiss the prisoner?
A I believe not, because in that case the prosecution of course can bring about an imprisonment by way of a complaint: 125, 126, Code of Criminal Procedure.
Q Why did, at the time, tho Public Prosecution object to a release from imprisonment of Katzenberger?
A Yes, when the file came to me, the situation had already been changed considerably. I did not receive the application to have tho prisoner released from imprisonment, or the complaint with the attitude of the Public Prosecution but I received the indictment against Herr Katzenberger and there by way of official channels it has to be decided how long the prisoner is to be detained pending trial. So Herr Markl wanted to find out the reasons for the imprisonment, and the releasing the prisoner, but mainly the opening main trial because the Penal Chamber wanted to know the length of the detention pending trial; that was a combination of two possibilities.
Q When did this matter come to you; when did it come before you?
A Well, I told you before still in July; sometime in July, as far as I remember the end of July, 1941.
Q How did Rothaug come into connection with this case?
A By way of the prosecution; by way of Herr Schroeder.
Q When did Rothaug for the first time get into contact with this matter? As far as you remember.
A He must have on the same day by way of Herr Schroeder; he must have been informed. Rothaug must have been informed because I did not even have the time judicially, because the very same day the Public Prosecutor Markl withdrew the documents from tho Penal Chamber.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, the Prosecution objects to this line of questioning concerning the details of Katzenberger's case being presently brought out for the reason that they are of a mechanical nature, completely covered in the direct examination, for the purpose of background only and present no discernable connection to the issued being tried here.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection over-ruled; proceed with the examination.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q As far as you remember, when did the question appear for the first time as to Frau Seiler committing perjury.
A The perjury case Seiler I would put at the first time the beginning of 1942, when I heard, and I believe I also in the prison book saw it, that in December Frau Seiler had been imprisoned; had been arrested for the Public Prosecutor Markl in the case of further investigation; he did not speak to me any more about it.
Q Who got the idea that Frau Seiler had committed perjury?
A Whose idea, who brought up the idea for the first time I can not tell you; from our sphere it was so that Herr Markl let it become apparent that the matter would be taken away, taken back to the Penal Chamber via Herr Schroeder on the initiative of Rothaug; that was a special discrimination according to the Public Enemy Order, and when I heard again about this matter in January, Frau Seiler had already been arrested because of perjury, so how this came about I do not know.
Q Did you want discussed the question as to whether Frau Seiler, by the investigating judge, had been taken under oath legally; was that discussed?
A Herr Rothaug repeatedly spoke against Herr Groben, and said insulting remarks; he made insulting remarks against Groben that he should not have taken this woman under oath; that that was evidence of lack of experience in the case of Groben in connection with this; that he could have spared this woman of this whole affair; that is correct, we discussed it.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems that there has been some slight misunderstanding about the duties of the military police in this room, and to clear up that situation, we have written up a very definite rule and I will read it at this time. It pertains to the counsel and to the defendants as to the attitude of the military police towards them.
"The following instructions by Tribunal No. III will guide you pertaining to the defendants and defense counsel:
"1. The defendants will at all times remain in their seats. Leaning forward t attract the attention of their counsel would not be a violation of this rule.
"2. The defense counsels are permitted to stand at a sufficient period at any time to show their respective clients an exhibit which is then under investigation, provided only a brief space of time is used for such purpose.
"3. If any defense counsel desires to confer with his client for any period of time which is more than momentary, he should address the Tribunal and ask for permission.
"These instructions are made necessary in order that good order may at all times be maintained and so that the military police may understand what their rights and duties are."
I haven't very many copies, but I have one for each of the defense counsels and one for the defendants themselves, and they can have an opportunity to pass them around. We also have one for the military Police and the prosecution.
You may now proceed with your further cross examination.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q. Witness, there was an objection saying that the proceedings against Frau Seiler and Katzenberger were combined.
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell me whether at any time the view was spread that the combination of the proceedings against Frau Seiler and Katzenberger were not tenable under the code of procedure?
A. Even in the case of Rothaug in his office, that pint was discussed and Rothaug in respect of passing sentence on Frau Seiler for perjury before the penal chambers which were competent at the time, was against this. I have already quoted his words here. He was afraid that a general penal chamber would make a mess of this for him. Those were his own words. We pointed out that there were proceedings, for example, which were discontinued, if after a testimony of a witness, there is a suspicion of perjury , that the chamber decides about the perjury proceedings and according to that decision of course the proceedings are continued. Under the provision that the facts, formally speaking, there were reasons for combining the two cases. That curtailed the evidence for Katzenberger.
Q. Did the defense make a motion that the proceedings should be separated?
A. No, they did not. Herr Endres, Seiler's defense counsel--I think I am not wrong when I say it was Herr Endres--did not make this mention, so that a ruling by the court on combininb or separating the two cases did not have to be made.
Q. Can you confirm to me that even after the two cases had been combined under the German rulings and procedure, there was a possibility to separate the two trials, at least until one defendant had to appear an a witness in the trial of the other defendant?
A. That is correct.
Q. Would, under German court usage, the testimony by Seiler as a witness, been more valuable than the testimony by Seiler as a co--defendant?
A. Those statements probably had the same value because we did not get a statement from Seiler as a witness because she was under suspicion of perjury, and penal proceedings were instituted against her.
Q. Did the court have any doubt as to whether Seiler had committed perjury?
A. The doubt referred to the fact as to whether Seiler kept something silent which concerned additional sexual acts, that is to say, that she had suppressed some occurrences altogether or as to whether she disputed the point that what she had omitted concerned sexual acts.
Q. I believe the second reason which you stated presented the mere subject of this argument.
A. I don't understand you properly.
Q. You meant to say that perjury was also supposed to have been committed because Seiler disputed erotic occurrences, although statements which she had omitted were in themselves of an erotic character, so that Seiler's testimony in itself constituted perjury.
A. Just a moment. As far as I remember, counsel for Seiler was also sentenced because it was assumed she had kept silent on actions which exceeded things which she herself had admitted.
Q. And the second reason is the one which I stated just now?
A. Yes, the second reason.
Q. Well then, concerning the individual participants of the session, be it the court, be it the public prosecution, or be it the defense counsel, did they have any doubt as to the sexual occurrence as such? I mean to say, did anybody have any doubt that the sexual intercourse which had been assumed had actually occurred?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If your Honor please, I object to that question as calling for a purely subjective observation by the witness which does not relate itself to any objective facts and I think goes into the matter which, as I recall, was not covered by the direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, my recollection is that there was an examination about these matters -
MR. LAFOLLETTE: But not of this character.
THE PRESIDENT: Not of this character. I think this line of examination is altogether foreign to the proper sphere of crossexamination. Of course; it is entirely proper to review this case; because it was dealt with in the examination in chief; but to ask this witness the question as to whether there is any doubt about her being guilty or not will not aid the Court nor promote the defense.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, will you tell me whether the Ministry of Justice dealt with the Katzenberger case only after the indictment; or after the sentence had been passed?
AA telephone communication took place on the day of the main trial because the indictment was submitted to them; the trials themselves had not been submitted to the Ministry.
Q On the day of the trial you say Reich Inspector Oexle was present?
A Yes; that was also mentioned in the newspapers.
Q Do you know why Reich Inspector Oexle was present?
A In those days -- in February and March 1942 -- the Gau was being taken over from Gauleiter Zimmermann by the Deputy Gauleiter Holz; Holz returned from the armed service. It was in that connection that Oexle was there.
Q Why did he come to the session?
A Because, at Mr. Haberkern's, he heard talk about it and because he wanted to hear the trial.
Q Is it correct that Frau Seiler had been a Party member? Was she a member of the NSDAP?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q Is it correct that it was one of Oexle's official duties to examine all Party matters?
AAll Party matters.
Q These Party matters which, within the meaning of that time, were considered vital, considered dangerous?
A Until now, as far as I knew, he was only concerned with misconduct on the part of the Party officers.
Q Is it correct that in the case of penal previsions against Party members the Party had to be informed?
A Under the guiding lines of penal procedure, yes.
Q At that time, on the day of the trial, was Gauleiter Holz present? Do you still remember that for certain?
A I have frequently put that question to myself in connection with the Grasser case. As far as Grasser is concerned, I know it for certain. As far as the Katzenberger case is concerned, regarding the attendance of Helz, I would like to leave the question open, because as I said, in those days the changeover in the Gau leadership took place, and I do not want to say so for certain. I have always avoided committing myself granting this point.
THE PRESIDENT: One moment, please. Maybe the rulings of the Tribunal could be mere consistent if we knew the theory of defense counsel. Now, may I inquire whether it is the purpose of defense counsel to show that the Party was taking a hand in this trial, or whether the defense counsel wants to show that the Party was not taking a hand in this trial? What is the answer to that?
DR. KOESSL: I wish to show that the Party was bound to be interested in those proceedings, and would have been represented even if not Rothaug but some other judge had been the presiding judge.
THE PRESIDENT: That does not answer my question. What I would like to know is whether the Party was trying to influence Rothaug or whether the Party was not trying to influence Rothaug.
DR. KOESSL: Your Honor, I would like to put this question to the witness. I do not know whether Your Honor wishes me to answer that myself.
THE PRESIDENT: My only wish is to knew your theory. If we knew what you were trying to show, we would know better how to rule, and therefore we would like to know your theory.
DR. KOESSL: I wish to try and prove that the Party had no influence on the proceedings.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, did you make observations according to which the Party officers interfered in these proceedings?
A Materially; there was one telephone conversation, for example. I had room 139, Rothaug had room 138, and Dr. Bauer, the medical officer of the district court was there. The date for the Katzenberger-Seiler case, which was set prior to 13 March 1942, had to be transferred to the 13th of March because of pro curing the expert opinion of the medical officer. In that connection, Rothaug had a telephone conversation with the Gau leadership and this was the contents:
An inquiry was made as to the postponement, what that postponement involved, what it meant. Rothaug answered that the expert opinion of the medical officer was needed. Further, it was evident that the person at the other end of the telephone asked whether that would mean a serious complication, and Rothaug said the medical officer of the district court would be all right, nothing was to be feared of him. The whole thing was only a matter of form; it was merely a matter of form, and a further postponement beyond the 13th was out of the question. The person at the other end of the telephone then evidently asked what Katzenberger's state of health was. Rothaug briefly exchanged a few words with Dr. Bauer and held his hand over the receiver. Dr. Bauer answered that he had once seen Katzenberger in the prison; he had not been struck by any obvious symptoms. Rothaug then said, "The Katzenberger thing will be all right; no difficulties arc to be expected." And thus the telephone conversation was finished.
Dr. Bauer then was given the files and, at the session, submitted his expert opinion.
That was one observation I made, but I made two further observations.
In one case, during the distribution or the allocation of the seats in the courtroom, not because of an infringement of a woman Party member of the Ortsgruppe, the Ortsgruppe Rosenhalle didn't get an invitation for that, but half of the seats were sent to the Gau leadership; they were sent to the Gau Propaganda. Office. The outer framework of the session in itself by far exceeded the normal framework of such sessions.
My third observation was that the SD appeared in uniform. One gentleman was there who had only been to see Rothaug once or twice -I would recognize him immediately if I saw him -- together with somebody else, who had come more frequently. Those two sat next to President Doebig. Contact with these officers was quite evident.
Q What did the interference of these Party officers consist of?
A I will answer that question as follows. Rothaug did not need an interference on the part of the Party. Rothaug's own ideological attitude was such that he did not need any political impulse or impetus as to how he was to proceed concerning the racial question. I believe that Rothaug would in no way be satisfied if one would dare to say that he needed tutelage in such matters. For him that was so much a matter of fact, he was so experienced in racial questions. As I have said already, in particular, in view of psychological evidence, on the basis of my many years of observation, on the basis of the results of all of my observations, I can only characterize this fact as such.
Q Did you make the observation that Rothaug ever once played the roll of which he was not really convinced that it was being applied rightly? Did you make the observation that Rothaug contrary to his convictions applied the laws?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: If your Honor pleases, -
THE PRESIDENT: It is not necessary to make any argument on that point. The witness could not answer this question unless he could read the mind of the defendant Rothaug.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I do not think the question is material?
THE PRESIDENT: Either way, the ruling as to the objection will be sustained.
Q Now, you mentioned two or one discussions with Freisler -
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I am sorry I didn't hear with whom?
Q One or two discussions with Freisler. Can you, for certain remember the subject of that conversation?
A Quite accurately.
Q Did the discussions concern the sentencing of Katzenberger or did it concern the sentencing of Seiler?
A I am quite certain that it concerned the sentencing of Katzenberger, because Under-Secretary Freisler immediately interfered and concerning Katzenberg said: The introduction of Public Enemy Laws and the Race Protection Laws, that is, the racial pollution within the meaning of paragraph 2 of the Public Enemy Laws, was an offense directed against the body or in the further meaning of paragraph 4 of the Public Enemy Laws, with adultery, that is to say, here, racial pollution, and because of Seiler's husband was a soldier. That immediately was a period of extremely doubtful application of the law. I remember that exactly, and the report to Rothaug extended to that point, and I remember his reply was quite clear and Rothaug said, they should have dared to pardon Katzenberger.
Q In the former course of your direct examination, you said that the question became acute, too, as to whether in connection with racial pollution, the woman was to be punished. Do you remember that?
A Yes, that has been disputed since 1935, ever since the Race Protection Law existed.
Q I do not doubt your good will, but I must put it to you: In the documents submitted, there is a reference saying that Hitler had expressed the wish that in cases of racial pollution, the woman is not to be punished. And, in that connection the verdict on Seiler seemed to be objected to on that basis. That Rothaug believes too he can remember that your account of the talk with Freisler concerned purely the sentencing of Seiler. And, not the sentencing of Katzenberger. So, that this doubt is probably clear, I should like to ask you again as to whether your memory is definitely serving you well?
A My memory -
THE PRESIDENT: (Interposing) That ground has certainly been well covered and this repetition of the matter that has been thoroughly covered should not be indulged in.
JUDGE BRAND: This witness definitely stated that he had given us his definite recollection. You will have to accept that as an answer because you are merely asking now for a further assurance from him that he remembers correctly. You are wasting our time in this matter.
Q I am now comment to another question. You have mentioned that Rothaug regarded the Eastern people as slaves No. 1, and the others as slaves No. 2. Do you remember a case in which a member of a Western State appeared before Rothaug as a defendant?
A A Dutchman, I remember that a Dutchman -
Q (Interposing) How did Rothaug treat that Dutchman?
A Well, the case of which I am thinking now, it has a peculiar character of its own because the case concerned a man who had been very badly treated in a factory here. He was teased, and he was made contemptuous because of the capitulation, and in that connection the Dutchman became aggressive.
He was arrested and proceedings were instituted against him before the Special Court. His soldierly bearing was appreciated, and he got off with a light prison sentence, I think only a little in excess of his imprisonment pending trial.
Q Did Rothaug treat that man as if he belonged to a nation of slaves?
A No, I said already the soldierly bearing of the man was appreciated.
Q Well, you said that foreigners were sentenced under the Public Enemy Laws.
A From account by the associate judges, who were present at such trials, I heard of two or three cases.
Q Do you remember why the Special Courts came to assume that the Public Enemy Laws were to be applied?
A That was not a case of Public Enemy Laws, but it was the economic world law which was concerned. Production came under paragraph 1 of the Wehrmacht Army Ruling, and concerned persons who were removed under those provisions, and the death sentence was made necessary because whoever the enemy was, it was concerned with the production which was important for food economy.
Q Did the Special Courts have actual guidance on that matter, according to which these foreigners attempted to sabotage the food economy of the German people during the war?
A Just as Rothaug used the information, the material which I have so often mentioned. And, through that, the judges who sat on the bench had to be told about that; that is to say about Hoffmann and Groben, and those who were present. They told me that about the penal, case which was to prevent starving. And, they also told me about another case. I don't remember the name, the case Pirner of Straubing. They said that it had been mentioned that Rothaug had said such matters were not single occurrences, and thus the ground was prepared on which the associate judges should consider, assuming the crime had been a serious crime.
Q From your information of foreign views, do you know that other foreigners were requested to carry out such attempts?
MR. LaFOLLETTE: I object for the reason that whether this witness had heard of it or not is not material. He asked the witness whether he knew the foreigners heard of it, and to me, the answer to this question in no ways throws light upon the fact that Rothaug did sentence prisoners to death for injury to animals. I cannot find any connection between this question and the question asked on direct examination, or that it, in any way, tends to discredit the statement of the witness on direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Witness, on what circumstance depended the judgement of the question as to whether a case was less grave than the meaning of the law, or as to whether it was a normal case; or as to whether the case was so-called particularly grave.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I am sorry I have to again object your Honor. I object to that question on the ground that it is so broad and indefinite that the witness can not intelligently answer it; as it is framed it is not directed to any issue that appears here, whether one case, ten cases, or any case were considered more grave or less grave. I fail to see that it is pertinent.
THE PRESIDENT: The opinion of this witness as to what is a grave case and what is not a grave case will not be material to any inquiry before this Tribunal. The objection will be sustained.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, you mentioned a case in which a Roman Catholic priest was supposed to have been criticized because he had buried a Pole according to the Catholic rites; was that the only point which was criticized?
A When the document first arrived from Roding, yes, that is so. The warrant for arrest was issued by Rothaug after that with the reason that the principles of the malicious acts law had been infrinted by a Catholic priest publicly on Sunday afternoon by making it possible for the civilian population to attend and giving burial to a Pole, and in this case the Ministry ordered the prosecution because the Ministry stated -- I personally was pleased, I myself was gratified because I rejected the issuance of the warrant. The Ministry then declared from the subjective point of view that it could not be proved for the priest that he had wished to resist the law concerning Poles and the authority of the State and police, but when the rejection had come from Berlin then, a sermon was dug up; the local police office dug up that sermon and the party officials, and that sermon made it possible to start a prosecution because the sermon had been held before the Pole had been buried.
Q Now, a last question; what was the relations of the members of the Special Court among, with Rothaug, outside their official relations?
A Those relations altogether corresponded to conventional custom, with a respectful observation of the fact that Rothaug was our superior; the person and the matters were kept separate and conditions which arose from official work were limited to official duties, official relations, and therefore, there was no difficulty.
BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendants Mettgenberg and Klemm)
Q Your Honor, I only have one question which I was unable to put prior to Dr. Koessl's cross examination, and as a matter of fact only during the cross examination something emerged which I now want to clear up by a question. The subject itself was mentioned by the witness under direct examination. Therefore, I would ask you to permit me to put this question to the witness after Dr. Koessl's cross examination. Witness, I am concerned with a conference which you mentioned and it concerned the fact that at the conference in Jena you met under secretary Freisler. I should like to put to you a question that concerns that conference. You fixed the time at 1938; is that right?
A During the Sudetenland crisis; the end of September or the beginning of October 1938.
Q May I ask you to give us a brief description of the character of that conference?
A The Reich Ministry of Justice, not through Freisler as counsel said, but as far as I remember through Dr. Mettgenberg had asked judges come to a continuation course; lectures were given which were to give a further insight than could be obtained from every day work; a transport law was taught; among other things economic law and fine points of criminal law; criminal psychological lectures were given; for instance Dr. Crone spoke about racial law and racial protection; Under Secretary Freisler spoke about criminal law and juveniles; and two lectures dealt with police work. I not Ministerial Dr. Best from the RSHA who gave an address on the security of living space and nations and another Ministerial counselor from the same ministry spoke on the first attack. The conference was in charge of Dr. Mettgenberg who early in the morning opened the lectures and afterwards closed them.
Q You already said that Dr. Mettgenberg organized the conference; what was your total impression of this conference; was it more of scientific matters; was it scientific continuation course, or did it have a political flavoring.
A The conference as a whole left me with the impression that it had a scientific continuation course; and the two lectures of which I mentioned by the gentlemen from the RSHA had not mot with approval. I actually believe that I can remember remarks during the discussions expressed the fact that all this seems a little alien to us; that these spheres of activity that belonged to the RSHA should be mentioned but that it was only thing of any political flavoring; nothing else was political in any way.
Q But because as a whole it was not a political conference, those two lectures attracted attention; is that so?
A Yes, that was so.
DR. SCHILF: That is all.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If there is no further cross examination, the Prosecution has no re-direct.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any further cross examination on the part of any defense counsel? If not, the witness may be excused. (Witness excused)
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, we still have pending this notion, this lost notion, that was made and then for sometime didn't get to the bench. I think we stated we would take it up today, but it is late, and I an rather under the impression that Dr. Kuboschok wanted to be present, and I would like to have it disposed of. However, requests for the examination of witnesses are piling up. Also after the disposition of that motion, I think I want to report on the discussions that I have had with Dr. Schilf and Dr. Brieger on an attempt to work out the translation matter, which I am afraid has failed, but through no fault of either of ourselves. It is rather late and possibly it is fair to say that we may take these up tomorrow morning at the opening of the session, if that meets with the approval of the Tribunal.
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, concerning the notion which the Prosecutor mentioned just now, we Defense Counsel have made contact among one another and we did so the evening before Easter, and we decided concerning this motion which was submitted in writing, we decided that we too would submit a notion in writing to the Court. This afternoon, after the session, the motion is to be formulated by the Defense Counsel, but one of my colleagues suggested that before we submit the motion to the Court and make it available to the Prosecution, that we should talk to Mr. Leslie who is the expert on American procedure for the Defense Counsel, we, therefore, do not wish to leave out Mr. Leslie, and suggest that the proposal which we have to make and which we are going to discuss again this afternoon, this proposal we wanted to show to him before we submitted it to the Tribunal.