Transcript for NMT 3: Justice Case

Court No. III, Case No. 3.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 15, the first ordinance on the Reconstruction of the Reich. I offer it as Exhibit 55.

THE PRESIDENT: It is received.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 16, second ordinance on the Reconstruction of the Reich, Article 1, deals with the position of the Prussian provincial governors, Oberpraesidenten. I offer it as Exhibit 56.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 17, an excerpt from Now Constitutional Law by Stuckart. This part deals with the reconstruction law. I offer it as Exhibit 57.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 18, from the same work, an article about the coordination of the Laender with the Reich. I offer it as Exhibit 58.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 19, the Reichstatthalter Law. I offer it as Exhibit 59.

THE PRESIDENT: Received.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 20, again Stuckart, New Constitutional Law, an article about the Reichstatthalter law, offered as Exhibit 60.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 21, decree of the Fuehrer concerning the formation of a council of ministers for the defense of the Reich, Article 1 Figure 2 lay down the members of this council of ministers for the defense of the Reich. Article 2 determines the following, and I quote: "The Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich can issue decrees, which have the force of a law, unless I order the passing of a law by the Reich Government or the Reichstag." I ask you to pay attention to this formulation which Hitler chose. I offer the document as Exhibit 61.

Court No. III, Case No. 3.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: 22, a decree of the Fuehrer concerning the position of the head of the Party Chancellory. First paragraph, I read the second sentence: "In addition to this I decree the following, in order to assure the closest cooperation between the Party Chancellery and Supreme Authorities of the Reich: The Head of the Party-Chancellery, Reichsleiter Martin Bormann, has the powers of a Reich Minister; he is a member of the Reich Government and the Council of Ministers for the Defense of the Reich."

I offer it as Exhibit 62.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 23, ordinance for the execution of the Fuehrer decree concerning the position of the leader of the party chancellery, Article 1. "The cooperation of the party in legislation shall be effected exclusively through the Chief of the Party Chancellery, unless the Fuehrer directs otherwise." I skip and come to Article 2. "In legislative work, the leader of the Party Chancellery shall in every case have the position of a participating Reich Minister."

I offer it as Exhibit 63.

THE PRESIDENT: 63 is received.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 24 from the work "The State Structure of the German Reich," a systematic presentation again by Dr. Stuckart about the position of the Reich government. I offer this document as Exhibit 64.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 25 contains copies from the work "The Greater German Struggle for Freedom," which contains speeches by Adolph Hitler, the excerpts from some speeches which contain threats in the field of the application of law. I read from the first speech, Page 26, the second sentence. This is the speech of 1 September 1939. Hitler says, "He who believes, however, that he can disobey this national order, be it directly or indirectly, shall fall. Traitors Court No. III, Case No. 3.have nothing to expect but death."

From another speech before the Old Guard in Munich on 8 November, 1941, I read the fourth to the last line: "If, however, anyone even of those among us, shall still believe that he could disrupt this front, no matter where he comes from, or which party he comes from, I watch him for a time -- you know my method. But then the moment comes where I strike like lightning and quickly put an end to such business. No camouflage will be of any avail then, not even a camouflage under the guise of religion."

The next speech, too, contains a threat of that kind, which represents a signal for Hitler's further policy in regard to the Ministry of Justice. I offer this document as Exhibit 65.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 26, second law concerning the transfer of the Administration of Justice to the Reich. I offer it as Exhibit 66.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 27 is the third law for the transfer of the Administration of Justice. I offer it as Exhibit 67.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 28, the much discussed decree of the Fuehrer, about the exercise of the right of pardon or clemency of 1 February 1935. Article 1 contains those cases where he reserves the right for the exercise of the right of pardon to himself. No. 2 means that in addition the quashing of criminal procedure he reserves to himself. I offer the document as Exhibit 68.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Document 29. Decree of the Reich Minister of Justice concerning the procedure in clemency matters of 6 February 1933, Article 1 repeats the quoted part from the Fuehrer decree. I offer the document as Exhibit 69.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: I now come to Document Book No. 4.

THE PRESIDENT: We will come to that document book after the Court No. III, Case No. 3.recess, Dr. Kuboschok.

We will now take a fifteen minute recess.

(A recess was taken.)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to be heard?

DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, if I may be permitted, I should like to make a brief statement concerning an occurrence of this morning. Your Honor, the representative of the Prosecution this morning asked the witness Meissner whether during the recess I had contacted him. I assume that in doing so, a behavior on my part, which is against the rules was supposed to be put down in the record. In this connection I have to say the following. The contact on the part of the Defense Counsel with witnesses before an American court is so fundamentally different than in a German court that we Defense Counsel are particularly careful that we don't commit any infractions of the rules; but, on the other hand, cannot afford to let any possibility to have contact with the witnesses. Soon after the first witnesses were heard in this trial, my colleagues, Dr. Schilf, Dr. Schubert and myself had a conference with Mr. Lafollette in his office in order to obtain information on that point from him. I remember that Mr. LaFollette even permitted for the defense the questioning on cross examination witnesses of the Prosecution during the recess. His words which I remember were: if you want to do so, I don't care at all.

THE PRESIDENT: May I interrupt you please. I am sure we can shorten this a good deal. The witness was a witness for the Defense, and it was within the right of the other defendants, also when Dr. Kubuschok had finished examining him, to make him a witness for some other defendant. You selected to do that. You spoke to the witness whom you proposed to call or to examine as your witness. You were not cross examining, and you were, in the opinion of the Tribunal, within your rights. On the other hand, counsel was entitled to inquire of the witness whether the witness had talked with you or not, but we find no impropriety in the fact that you talked with a witness whom you proposed to call and examine as your own. Does that make it clear?

DR. BRIEGER: Certainly, Your Honor, that is quite satisfactory for me.

MR. WOOLEYHAN: That applies to witnesses who at the tine are incarcerated in the Nurnberg Jail.

THE PRESIDENT: We find no impropriety in his talking with a witness whom he proposed to call immediately for further examination.

MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, about your results and before Dr. Kubuschok resumes, the Prosecution has a brief word with regard to his document No. 65 which he offered as Exhibit No. 30. As Dr. Kubuschok stated, that document was previously offered by the Prosecution on the 22nd of April as Document R-139. At the time we offered it on that day, Dr. Behling objected on the grounds that the original photostat was incomplete and that the pages were all mixed up in the German document books, so the Prosecution withdrew it and did not again re-offer it. Now, we have no objection to the document being offered by the Defense, with, however, the priviso that when Dr. Kubuschok gets that photostat from the document room to use as his exhibit, that both he and the Court realize that it is an incomplete photostat. It is in the same form now as it was then.

THE PRESIDENT: There being no objection before the Tribunal, and both parties having attempted to introduce the incomplete document, it may be received; and you may secure the necessary photostat from the custodian of the documents.

THE PRESIDENT: Now, I think the Tribunal is also ready to rule upon the two matters which we reserved.

Ruling was reserved as to exhibit narked for identification on 41, which is to be found beginning with page 1 in document book I, Schlegel in that connection, we first call Counsel's attention to the provisions of rule 21 of this Tribunal. It appears probable and almost certain that when the rule was adopted by all of the Tribunals, not only this one, it was adopted because of the difficulty which Counsel Kuboschok has mentioned, the difficulty of securing an affidavit in the manner which is required, let us say, in English or American law. Because of the difficulty an alternative procedure was authorized by rule 21. We think it is very clear. It provided that statements of witness made in lieu of an oath may be admitted in evidence if otherwise competent and admissible, and containing statements having probative value, if the following conditions are met:

1. The witness shall have signed the statement before defense counsel or, 2. Before a notary -- I am skipping along, or 3. Before a Buergermeister, in certain circumstances which are specified or, 4. Before a competent prison authority in certain circumstances.

Then, comes provision 5, The statement in lieu of an oath shall contain a preamble which shall contain a preamble which shall state, and then follows the words, "with the name and address of the witness, after having first been warned that I will be liable for punishment for making a false statement in lieu of oath, state and declare that my statement is true in lieu of an oath, and that my statement is made for submission of evidence before Military Tribunal --, Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany."

Then follows:

"The signature of the witness according to paragraph 6 shall be followed by a certificate stating-

"The above signature of (stating the name and address of the witness) identified by (stating the name of the identifying person or officer), is hereby certified and witnessed by me".

To be followed by:

"The date and place of execution of the statement, and the signature of the witness, signature of the person or officer certifying the same."

These rules are clear.

As I said, they are passed to enable counsel to avoid difficulties of complying with the formal requirements of an affidavit.

As to exhibit 41, it must be said that is it not strictly and technically in compliance with that rule. We suppose the preamble normally proceedes the statement made in lieu of an oath, but that is purely a technical objection. At the end, on page 4, document book I, Schweitzer says:

"I Wilhelm Schweitzer, born (giving the date and place) have been cautioned (which is the equivalent to warning) to the effect that I render myself liable to punishment if I make a false affidavit. I declare under oath that the above statement corresponds to the truth and was made in order to be submitted as evidence before the Military Tribunal No. III, Palace of Justice, Nurnberg, Germany."

That, substantially complies, not with the requirements of an affidavit, but it substantially complies with the requirements of a statement in lieu of oath, and the signature as required by rules is certified by Dr. Kuboschok. We find it substantially complies with the requirements of our rule.

The exhibit is received.

Exhibit 40, the affidavit of Adalbert Keil, is not an affidavit. It would be admissible, if at all, only as a statement in lieu of an oath, and there is no substantial compliance with the requirements of our rule as to what shall be contained in the so-called preamble. And, in its present condition it does not comply with the rule of any of the Tribunals, and at present the offer is rejected.

You may proceed with your other exhibits.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: Does the decision of the Tribunal also concern document 75, on page 87 of document book III, that is a statement in lieu of oath of Kohn; that was the first objection.

MR. WOLLEYHAN: That mas already ruled upon, your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: What document is that?

DR. KUBOSCHOK: My number 75. The exhibit number has not been given. It is in document book III.

THE PRESIDENT: We have ruled upon it.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: I beg your pardon.

I come now to document book IV. A statement in lieu of oath by Werner Grussendorf. I read the third paragraph of the first page:

"After having previously been referent for personnel matters in the Prussian Ministry of Justice, I continued to hold this position after the unification of justice in 1935 in the Reich Ministry of Justice. From 1936 onwards I mas Ministerial Councillor and was finally appointed Reichsgerichtsrat by Minister Thierack, as he did not wish me to remain in my former position because my attitude towards personal matters was opposed to his."

The paragraph before the last, on the first page:

"The handling of the personnel matters of the judicial officials were divided into districts between the two under secretaries Dr. Schlegelberger and Dr. Freisler. In a general sense as well as continually in individual cases it became clearly apparent that Dr. Schlegelberger regarded things as a professional man whilst Dr. Freisler adopted a Party point of view in his policy regarding personnel matters.

"Dr. Schlegelberger deliberately clung to the old professionally qualified judiciary and was thus from the very beginning opposed to the party offices insofar as these made requests without taking professional qualifications into consideration. The prevention of these requests formed a considerable part of our professional work.

"Dr. Schlegelberger's activity - clearly apparent to all of us was so strongly influenced by this attitude that in all our efforts we were certain of unreserved assistance from the very beginning.

"This conception of Dr. Schlegelberger of the question of the attitude of justice officials towards the Party was also apparent if an official entered into too close a relation to tho party.

"I can recall the case of a Chief Public Prosecutor in East Prussia who was in close contact with Gauleiter Koch and had given him too deep an insight into justice matters. Dr. Schlegelberger reprimanded this Chief Public Prosecutor severely in my presence because of his conduct. Also in other cases he expressed grave disapproval if individual officials placed the interests of the party too much in tho foreground.

"If justice officials encountered difficulties for political or racial reasons we could bw certain of Dr. Schlegelberger's complete understanding; this is especially true in the case of so-called Jewish half-breeds as well as in the cases in which justice officials were exposed to the hostility of the party because of their religious views.

"I remember especially the case of a Landgerichtsrat in Allenstein, whose dismissal was demanded by the party chancellory because of his religious vies. I was told the whole story in Allenstein by the Landgerichtsrat himself, thereupon I went to Munich to the Party Chancellery and was able to prevent the dismissal of the official. I acted in this case on the special orders of under Dr. Schlegelberger.

"Also in other cases Dr. Schlegelberger interested himself energetically in the matters of judges who were persecuted for political reasons. Thus he succeeded in keeping the not "100% Aryan" members of the District Court in Koenigsberg in office for a long time - in the face of severe opposition from the Party.

"I myself was present when Dr. Schlegelberger pointed out to Dr. Funk, President of the District Court at Zichenau, that Poles and Jews who came before the Court should be treated in a humane and decent manner. He insisted on just and lawful treatment and disapproved of excessive severity.

"Dr. Schlegelberger frequently said the same in my presence also to other judges from the incorporated Eastern territories when he had a chance of talking to them. I also remember that he instructed the President of the District Court in Danzig to keep a close watch on a Director of the District Court who, as chairman of a special court, had passed very severe sentences, and to strive for moderation" I now read the last line on that page:

"Very often it could be noticed that the burden of his position became a very heavy one to Dr. Schlegelberger. This is especially true of questions concerning criminal law, which were fundamentally far removed from his sphere because Dr. Schlegelberger was definitely a civil jurist. If Dr. Schlegelberger in an intimate circle expressed his intention of retiring, he was always asked to retain his position as his retirement would discourage the rest of the judges and would doubtlessly bring an adherent of the party to his position. That this had to be avoided in the public interest was clear to every one of us.

"In this connection one should also remember that over all these considerations hovered the constant threat from the party that criminal justice might be taken over by the SS. The constant public denunciations of a non-national socialist justice and the general and individual attacks of the party were directed to this end.

"In order to avoid this Dr. Schlegelberger also had to take measures which were in opposition to his private opinion but which were necessary in order to moderate further demands of the party.

I was informed by Gardiewski the President of the local court, who was a brother-in-law of Jeschennek, Chief of the General Staff of the Luftwaffe, that soon after the death of Minister Guertner Hitler said to Jeschennek and other officers: "but the next Minister of Justice will be no professional."

I ask that this document be received as Exhibit 70.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document No. 78 is a copy, from the Reich Legal Gazette, of the German Civil Service Law. I refer, on the second page, to Article 60, which refers to the possibility of releasing a civil servant.

Then, on page 8 of the document book, Article 171 is the provision of which the defendant Schlegelberger said that it was taken in for the protection of the independence of the judges. The paragraph roads:

"The pensioning of a judge according to article 71 cannot be based upon the factual contents of a decision which he has made in the performance of his judicial duties."

I offer this document as Exhibit 71.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 79 is an amendment to the German Civil Service law of 25 March 1939. I refer to article 2, which reveals that from that time onward a civil servant no longer could ask for his release on his own.

I offer this as Exhibit 72.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 80 contains the same provision in the third law, amending the German Civil Service Law, of 21 October 1941. I offer this document as Exhibit 73.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I come now to document 81, an affidavit by Dr. Miethsam. An affidavit has already been submitted from Dr. Miethsam by the prosecution.

MR. WOOLEYHAN: Your Honors, to make this objection of mine brief, I object to the admissibility of the Miethsam affidavit on the same grounds which the record will show that I objected to the Hecker affidavit.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: It has not become clear to me, from the statement made by the prosecution, what the prosecution means. Should it not be possible merely to submit an affidavit, but yet to call the witness as my own witness? The latter cannot be denied, can It? If in a trial, by the submission of an affidavit, one can avoid calling a witness in order to save time--such as has been ordered in this trial--then the possibility must exist to got an affidavit from this witness, after he had been a witness for the prosecution and now becomes my witness.

THE PRESIDENT: Miethsam was an affiant for the prosecution and was thereafter produced in court, was he not, and examined here?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, in cross-examination. However, I could not cross-examine him because I did not want to attack his credibility. I wanted to have him as my own witness later.

THE PRESIDENT: It presents the identical question which is raised in the Hecker case?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.

Therefore, I will skip this affidavit.

THE PRESIDENT: Lot us give it a number and have it identified.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes; the number will be 74. I ask that the number 74 be reserved for this document.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit will be marked for identification No. 74, and the ruling will be reserved together with the ruling on the Hecker affidavit.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: By the way, may we inquire: Hecker is in jail in Nurnberg and is available, is he not?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Hooker is in the witness house; he is free, but he is in the witness house and is available. He is in Nurnberg.

THE PRESIDENT: He is in Nurnberg.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Is Miethsam available?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Miethsam does not live in Nurnberg, but there should not be too groat difficulty in bringing him here.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 82 is an affidavit of Hermann Schoetensack. I road the second paragraph:

"From 1937 until the collapse, I was expert (Referent) in Section I (personnel Division) of the Reich Ministry of Justice as Oberlandesgerichtsrat, Ministerialrat, and Reichsgerichtsrat, and reported once or twice every week to Under-Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger."

I skip several sentence and continue with the next paragraph:

"In the course of time, the NSDAP, under the leadership of the STUERMER, continued making new demands against the Jews. During my time indignation was especially directed against notaries married to Jewesses, against Jews as lawyers, and that Jewish lawyers defended Aryans and aryan lawyers defended Jews. Undersecretary Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER repeatedly used his influence against these movements. Under his direction I led the fight against the defamation of the lawyers by the STUERMER and the Schwarze Corps.

When HITLER, in my opinion under pressure from the party, the jurists' association, the STUERMER, and the Schwarze Corps, ordered the elimination of the Jews from the legal profession, certain particularly respected Jewish lawyers were appointed consultants at the instigation of Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, in order that the interests of the JEwish population did not suffer. He extended his special protection to these consultants.

"In addition, Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER generally and actively used his influence to assist persons wrongfully persecuted for political or racial reasons. In such instances, I repeatedly acted on his behalf and drafted many letters, for instance, to HIMMLER, HESS, and BORMANN. In this connection, I would like to mention the case of the attorney LASSENAU of Innsbruck whose liberation from a concentration camp I myself secured after lengthy negotiations with the party chancellery."

THE PRESIDENT: It will be received.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 83 is an affidavit by Dr. Josef Hornef. The affidavit and the annexes are very extensive, and therefore I should like to summarize them.

MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, before Dr. Kubuschok goes any further with this so-called affidavit, I wish to invite the Court's attention to the fact that on page 19 of the English document book the certifying officer is a court clerk of a local court who, within the provisions of Rule 21, is not a competent certifying officer for a statement in lieu of oath. I therefore object to this statement.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I believe, when that rule was made, that all the various categories of officials were not taken into account.

If the rule provides that even a Burgomeister is permitted to authorize these documents, then certainly a person should all the more be permitted to do so who, by his profession, is the authorizing official of a court.

THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Kubuschok, this rule was adopted by all of the Tribunals. It is clear on its face, and it is not timely now to simply say that it would be bettor if we had a different rule.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: I skip that document No. 83 and come to document No. 84.

THE PRESIDENT: No will also lot this be identified by the number 76 for identification.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.

I come now to document 84, a statement in lieu of oath by Dr. Curt Richter. I will read the third paragraph on page 1:

"I am of non-Aryan descent; that is, one of my grandparents (Cornelie Richter, nee Meyerbeer) belonged certainly -- another one, (Banker Benoit Oppenheim) -- very probably to the Jewish race. Then National Socialism came to power I remained in office since those grandparents did not profess the Jewish religion, and in the beginning the National Socialists were mainly concerned with this, whereas later, especially after the proclamation of the Nuernberg laws solely the race was regarded as important."

I skip several paragraphs and continue to read on the next page, about the middle of the next page:

"My uncle, Reinhold RICHTER, the recently deceased Ministerialdirektor in the Reich Ministry of Justice, procured for me an interview with Under- Secretary of State Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, whom I had not mot personally.

I gathered from his attitude during the interview that ho had been informed about the state of affairs, probably through my uncle, and I therefore only briefly stated my wish to be transferred, without, on my part, enlarging upon the special dilemma I found myself in.

Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER immediately promised me his support in spite of the groat difficulties involved in any transfer to Berlin, which I knew well; ho declared that he would do anything within his power and that I should contact as soon as possible the official expert, Ministerialrat Dr. GRUSSENDORF in the Reich Ministry of Justice, whom he would inform. I add that my uncle, Ministerialdirektor Reinhold RICHTER, was, according to the then valid Nuernberg laws, a Jewish half-breed 1st degree, a fact which must have been known to Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER as Under Secretary of State in the same Ministry. He must therefore have known without further explanations, that when he helped me, the nephew, he was helping a non-aryan whose racial descent had been covered thus far effectively, as the interview showed. I am convinced that Dr. SCHLEGELBERGER, when he as an Under Secretary of State helped to cover up the non-Aryan descent of an official in order to protect him from the harshness of the then valid laws, exposed himself to a considerable personal danger, all the more since, as far as I can remember, the decisive position of power in the Reich Ministry of Justice was then held by Dr. FREISLER who was radically inclined."

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document, No. 85, is an affidavit, statement in lieu of oath, by Eduard Dietel. I read the third paragraph. "The position of District Court President; Wurzburg was offered to me by the Reich Ministry of Justice in the year 1936. The Gauleiter in Mainfranken, Dr. Hellmuth, did not approve of me, because I was politically unreliable. Despite the fact that I was twice rejected by the Party and the fact that I was not a member of the Party I was promoted to Senate President in Bamberg by the Reich Ministry of Justice on 16 September 1936."

The further contents of the affidavit refer to various instances of Schlegelberger's taking part in protection of officials who were not members of the Party. Furthermore, toward the end the affidavit refers to the approval of the attitude of the Ministry of Justice in the case of the aryanizations in Nurmberg. The acquisition of property which had belonged to Jews by the deputy Gauleiter Holz. I offer this document as Exhibit 78.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 86, Publication of the Text of the Judicature Act and the code of Criminal Procedure. I refer to Article 15 on the second page. It concerns Exceptional Tribunals, that is Ausmahmegerichte, not Special Courts. I offer this as Exhibit 79.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 87, law concerning the People's Court. I offer as Exhibit 80.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 88, decree concerning the competence of the criminal courts, and other regulations with regard to criminal procedure of 21 February 1940. I refer to the provisions concerning special courts which are to be found on page 47 of the Document book. Article 10 and 11 concerning the composition of the Special Courts.

On the following page, page 48 of the Document Book, article 13, needs to be mentioned. There the laws arc listed for which the special courts were competent. I refer to figure 4, the so-called war economy decree, a law on the basis of which a large number of cases were tried during the war. All these cases came under the competency of the Special Courts. I refer also to page 50 of the Document Book, article 17. That provision forms the basis of procedure before the Special Courts. I offer this document as Exhibit 81.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Because of dealing with a general subject I offer Document 89. That document contains the law convening protective custody, the law of 4 December 1916. I am submitting this to show the historic development in particular so that the court can see that for cases of protective custody regular procedure following thereafter was ordered. I offer Document 89 as Exhibit 82.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 90, decree by the Reichspresident for the protection of the nation and the state, which was the basis for the decree concerning protective custody. I offer this document as Exhibit 83.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 91, a collection of ordinances published by the RSHA, Reich Security Main Office. It concerns the provisions for protective custody. I offer this document as Exhibit 84.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document is document No. 92, an excerpt from the CI Handbook 113, subdivision. As page 72 of the document book will show the passage quoted deals with the SD, the evaluation of the SD and its tasks. I offer this document as Exhibit 85.

Transcript for NMT 3: Justice Case

Defendants