In other places it is also described as Party Liability Law in this trial here. Your name is mentioned in this document as having been present at a conference with Ministerialdirektor Altstoetter, that is the defendant in this trial, and Dr. Bergmann of the Ministry of Justice. Present for the Party Chancellery in addition to your name, an Oberregierungsrat Dr. Enke is also mentioned. Please state your opinion in regard to this document.
A. I do not want to go into the actual contents of this entire matter too much, otherwise I would have to quote almost every paragraph of this memorandum and to explain what has to be read into it, and above all what one can read between the lines. The essence of this whole matter I shall mention briefly, and I can do so briefly because the entire problem remained in draft form and never was formed into a legal regulation. The nucleus of the matter is as follows: if in any trial a political rating is introduced which has been made by some Party office, the judge may examine this political judgment as to its correctness or must he accept it as being correct? In other words, this is how the party saw it should the judge be given the right to examine measures taken by the party? These political ratings could play an important part in the regulation of legal matters. For example if some one was dismissed from his job because of his political attitude or if a guardian was supposed to be appointed, situations arose in which the importance of the political judgment alone was the important thing. The Party, especially Division 2 of the Party Chancellery, and other offices too, for instance the Legal Division of the Reich Treasury represented stubbornly the point of view that the Party does not let the administration of justice examine it's judgments, the Party's judgments in such cases, and the judge must abide by what the party gives him without criticism. This legal regulation was supposed to be created, and this memorandum discusses this. Perhaps this was the most difficult position which the Group 3-C ever had to assume. On the one hand were the party offices which pressed for the creation of this regulation within the meaning which they desired; on the other hand were the realiz ation that no judge could be expected to abide by this, and the desire to help the Administration of Justice in that problem.
We of the Party Chancellery in this discussion which is described in this memorandum let our point of view be seen quite openly. We had probably for this discussion which took place in Munich in my office not asked to come the representatives of the legal division of the Reich Treasurer and representatives of Division 2 -- in order to be able to speak with the representatives of the Administration of Justice somewhat more openly. The result of this discussion is also recorded in this document, namely that it had to be reformulated. This again meant a gain of time. In this manner as in this discussion of 22 June 1942 a final solution is again postponed. In this way this matter was handled later on, too, and even in 1945 no final regulation had been made yet in regard to this problem.
Q. With that we have exhausted all of those exhibits which the Prosecution submitted against you, which concerned discussions or agreements in regard to drafts of laws. At the beginning when you described the activity in the party Chancellery you had, however, stated further tasks which you had to deal with in the Justices Division Group, Group 3-C in the party Chancellery. You mentioned that the Malicious Acts Law, the Law against Malicious Attacks on Party and State contained a regulation according to which the Party Chancellery in the case of penal persecution had to give its approval. I am now asking you in what cases was this important and what was the attitude of the Legal Group 3-C?
A. I can answer this question relatively briefly since I have already described how in accordance with the so-called Malicious Acts Law the ordering of penal prosecution was possible only in agreement with the leader of the Party Chancellery. In the same way as I did from 1937 -'36 till '39 in the general political department in the Reichministry of Justice these reports of penal cases under the Malicious Acts Law in the way I had compiled them for the Party Chancellery, in the same way now when I was in the Party Chancellery I received these reports in order to state my opinion from the point of view of the Party Chancellery.
In that regard between Department 3-C and the Ministry of Justice almost complete unity prevailed. A different attitude in an individual case was most infrequently taken. An absolutely moderate practice was followed, and I can remember no single case in which it was suggested not to prosecute under the Malicious Acts Law but to indict because of undermining the military strength. This never happened. At the most in one case or another it was said that it would be better if the Prosecution under the Law were ordered here or it was stated: in this case we consider that it is not necessary to order prosecution under the law. In accordance with the insight I have, these cases were about equal; and I believe there were sometimes six to ten cases during one year in which there was a deviation from the suggestion of the Ministry of Justice and a different attitude was taken.
Q: Herr Klemm, you furthemore mentioned that in the legal group, complaints by individual persons and complaints by party offices against the Administration of Justice were dealt with. Please will you describe that to the Tribunal more in detail but briefly.
A: A large number of such complaints came to the Party Chancellery -- complaints by individual persons who referred to their membership and thus turned to the party Chancellery as well as to individual Party and the Administration of Justice, especially prevented it that these matters be used by Division 2 in a campaign against the Administration of Justice, and these matters were handled either by our informing the complainant directly; mostly, however, it was said that interference in a pending trial was not possible in view of the independence of the judge. Or it was stated that on the basis of the laws, the case had been decided correctly and there was not cause for interference. However, these matters were also submitted to the so-called legal offices -- Rechtsbetreungsstellen -- of the Party who were legally trained persons in office with instructions to advise the person who had sent in a complaint. This activity had nothing to do with any clemency pleas and penal cases. These matters were dealt with by Bouhler's office. That is the Chancellery of the Fuehrer.
However, there were also cases in which we considered a criticism of any measure taken by the Administration of Justice as justified. In such a case, we got in touch with the Ministry of Justice directly with the request to examine the matter and take further steps. Then we only informed the person who sent in the complaint that what was necessary had been initiated, or what also happened, directly, because the Ministry of Justice was competent, we turned the complaint over to it.
Q: In that connection, did you have to deal also with complaints by individual persons against the Party itself or against prominent Party members?
A: There were even quite a number of cases in which civilians either addressed Bormann directly or the Party Chancellery as such and asked for protection against Party offices because they interfered in matters of the Admnistration of Justice to the disadvantage of the author of the letter; in other words, for example, it happened that a man was sentenced or received a decision by a court in a civil case in accordance with which another person had to pay him a thousand marks. The person who was in the worst position in this litigation turned to the local group leader. This asked to have the person in charge of this civil case come to see him, and told him that he would take steps against him with the means at the disposal of the Party if he would try to have this decision carried out by force. The person who had been threatened in that way told the party Chancellory and in such cases it was seen to it immediately that such complaints came to our department, and it was seen to it immediately that the local group leader (Obergruppenleiter) was instructed by his Gauleader or Party leader not to do such things of that kind.
Of particular cases which were especially grotesque and important, I can remember only two. There were too many of those in order to remember all of them.
Q: Herr Klemm, may I remind you to describe these two cases which you mentioned especially briefly.
A: In the one case it was a question of a merchant from Augsberg who had acquired a farm.
A Kreisfarmer leader or land-farmer leader wanted to acquire this farm for himself and he put all possible obstacles in the way of this businessman so that he would not gain possession of this farm. In this case, we took the part of this businessman especially strongly and the Kreis, or Landesfarmleader had to give in. In another case, a physician had been removed from his position in charge of a children's hospital due to differences of opinion with the board of supervisors of this hospital which belonged to a foundation. The person who had pushed out the physician was was a very prominent Party member. He was the Chief of the National Socialist Dozenten Association -- Lecturer's Association. Here too we took the necessary steps with the Bavarian Government so that the physician would again be given his position which he had been deprived of due to the prosecution by this chief of the lecturers. We were successful in doing this too.
Q: You spoke about complaints which Party office made about the Administration of Justice. Were there also complaints by the offices of the Administration of Justice against the Party, and did you take measures in those cases?
A: That happened very frequently, namely that the Administration of Justice had to complain about Party office and their behavior. We tried in every possible way to help the Administration of Justice here and to eliminate such interference, but that really was the field especially in which we had a bitter fight with Division II of the Chancellory. But in this field especially, beautiful success was ours. It must have been December 1942 when we succeeded to cause Bormann to achieve that Hitler send a circular letter to the Party -- that is, a circular letter with Hitler's own signature -- and therefore it was especially authoritative.
That circular letter must be No. 10 or 12 from 1942, in which it was strictly forbidden that Party officers interfered in trials; that any pressure upon a party in a trial was forbidden; and that at the most it was permitted to give legal advice and that at most it might be attempted to achieve an arbitration with the parties -- but this took only in a manner so that no pressure was exercised in any of the parties in the trial.
Q.- Were there also cases in which party offices attempted to influence prosecutions in courts in order to have penal cases carried out against prominent party members, or to prevent their being carried out?
A.- That happened very frequently that local offices in particular Gau Leaderships, Kroisleaderships attempted in penal prosecutions against prominent National Socialists to prevent such a trial or to obscure the facts. In this connection I remember two cases in particular. In one case large embezzlements were concerned, within the scope of the NS People's Welfare in Kiel - that was the well known care Janawsky - and similar cases in Berlin, Department III-C in particular succeeded together with the revision office of the Reich Treasury, which cooperated very well in the matter, they succeeded in removing all difficulties which were in the way of carrying out of these trials. In the Jannowsky case, death sentences were pronounces too. Jannowsky, I remember this still, was executed too. And a second example, quite briefly; this was a Krcisleader at Bodensee (Lake Constance) who killed a woman by driving over her -- running over her with a automobile; and he was in a drunken condition. The Gauleiter tried to cover the Kreisleitor up and to ovoid having him prosecuted. Be achieved that this Kreisleiter was made available for trial; what was the result of that trial, I don't know.
Q.- You mentioned finally that in your justice group, it was among your tasks to observe civil and criminal trials. Would you please briefly make some statement in regard to this?
A.- The observations consisted merely in our asking the Ministry of Justice alter the sentences had been pronounced to send us a copy of the sentence; and that we thereupon informed the party offices that were interested. Especially where we did not quite trust the local party offices that they acted in a manner which the party chancery desired this to be sure happened seldom - a representative went to see the trial. Thus,I know for example, though at that time I was no longer in the partychancery, that for the trial against the Kreisleiter at Lake Cons tance one member of Group III-C went to this trial.
Q.- The last question in regard to this subject -- you mentioned legal reforms, work and expert opinions in your legal group. Would you please tell the Tribunal in one word what you meant by that?
A.- The work on legal reforms were per se the task of the Reich Legal Office. This office was dissolved in August 1942, and this work was discontinued completely because it was not important for the war efforts. At that time the entire material that existed was taken over into Group III-C, and one expert referent of the Reich Legal Office was transferred into Group 111-C. He administered these matters, but did not advance them. All of these questions were not dealt with unless a certain question became acute. As an example for this, I would like to mention the unification of criminal law between Austria and. the Old Reich. Here, however, we were concerned with purely scientific questions, as for example the question of attempted instigation. The giving of the expert opinion for the party legal field was also very limited because Division II asked us as little as possible for opinion and excluded us practically altogether. I would like to cite a few very brief examples. In 1942, in the spring, the highest party court submitted a large memorandum and asked that they should be given the same rights as the regular penal jurisdiction, in other words to be allowed to pronounce not only disciplinary penalties, but also monetary penalties, prison sentences and even the death sentence. This was justified by saying that it was harmful to the reputation of the party if serious crimes were tried in the public, in the Administration of Justice; and beside that, it was not practical to try such matters twice which should be kept secret, namely, before the honorary jurisdiction and before the police, then Group 111-C had to state our opinion in to this memorandum which Bormann had sent to us, I did so and the regard Fuehrer refused completed to sustain this suggestion. Another example which shows the difficulties of this interwining of party and state. Without asking the opinion of Group III-C, the Reich Treasury had issued an instruction that every denunciation because of an embezzlement of party funds, in local groups or gau level, could be made only by him.
This order brought many people into serious conflict of conscience, that is in their activity for the state, there were many Ortsgruppenleiters, local group leaders, won were mayors at the same time. As mayors they were at the same time the highest police official in the locality, and as police officials it was their duty immediately to forward the knowledge of crimes or matters which should be prosecuted to the competent prosecution authority or to their superior police authority. This order by the Reich Treasurer that only he could decide about denunciation, about embezzlement of party money, prevented them from carrying out this duty. If a local group treasurer had embezzled money, then, the local group leader, who was at the same time mayor, was in a conflict in any case, Either he violated the order of the Reich treasurer from the party point of view, or if ho followed this order, he did hot act in accordance with his duty as civil servant. There were serious fights to find a somewhat tenable solution, But on the whole we were asked to state our opinions less and less in such questions because Division II did not let us participate. Mostly however, if we were consulted, the question was merely in regard to the formulation of individual regulations.
THE PRESIDENT: You have reached a convenient stopping place. Counsel will bear in mind that this Tribunal is adjourning until Thursday morning, July 1th, at 9:30; and that the general hearing on the conspiracy count will be tomorrow morning in the large courtroom at 9:30.
We will adjour at this time.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 10 July, 1947, at 0930 hours.)
exhibit in here at that time, nor did I have any English for the Bench All I am doing now is physically sending the exhibit to the SecretaryGeneral and distributing the English copies of the Exhibit, which has been marked for identification solely, as 522.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will so show.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I distributed German copies, but if any counsel did not get one, I will put them here on the table. There are several extra copies still there on the counsel table.
That is all. Thank you.
DR. SCHILF: (Counsel for the defendant Klemm): May it please the Court, before I continue with the examination of the witness Klemm, I would like to say the following:
In the course of this morning, Exhibit 252 -- that is in document book III-L -- will be discussed by me with the witness. I would like to draw Your Honors! attention to the fact that this is a very extensive document, and I believe, in the interest of understanding the statements of the witness, it would be necessary for Your Honors to have that document before you while I examine the witness. Perhaps that exhibit 252 could be brought into the courtroom by the messenger. I would like to address the same remark to the Prosecution.
THE PRESIDENT: That is book III-L?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, document book III-L.
HERBERT KLEMM (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Herr Klemm, before the session was interrupted, we had discussed your work in the Justice Group of the Party Chancellery, and we had finished with that discussion. There was also an opportunity for you to give your views concerning all documents which the Prosecution submitted. Now, I have a few more questions about your work in the Party Chancellery.
The first question concerns Bormann's attitude to the Justice Group -- that is, Department III-C at the Party Chancellery. Will you please give us your views about that?
A.- Bormann was an opponent of the jurists and, in general, held them in disrespect. The word "jurist" was a term for abuse with him. That went so far that in his marginal notes on some applications or statements he employed the word "jurist", even if the expert whose paper he did not like was not a jurist at all. To Bormann, the jurist was an obstacle in the way of the political work and aims of the Party, To him, as I have said before, the jurist was a necessary evil. That was true in particular of Department III and of Justice Group 111-c.
Q.- What was your own attitude concerning Bormann? Were you able to exert any influence on Bormann?
A.- When I was called to the staff of the Fuehrer's Deputy, Bormann was the head of the staff, the Stabsleiter of the Fuehrer's Deputy Staff, but already since the outbreak of the war -- that is to say for 18 months -he had been at the Fuehrer's headquarters.
I made Bormann's acquaintance, and he mine, after I started to work in the Fuehrer's Deputy's Office. Occasionally he passed through Munich when he was on some trip, and that occasion was used for my being introduced to him. Bormann was a very informal person and lacked manners. That introduction too took place in a hurry, without his asking me to come into his room.
To Bormann, I always stated my own opinion as frankly as possible. One of the Referents at the Reichsleiter Bureau, who later on, in 1942 or 1943, came to Munich and who commanded a certain survey over all the applications and statements that reached Bormann, told me that I was the one among the Referents who stated his opinion in the most definite manner without regard to the fact as to whether it would please or displease Bormann.
During my work, which went on for two years and nine months in Munich, I believe that three to five times -- I think it was only three times, I had an opportunity to make a personal oral report to Bormann. That was in Munich or in Berlin. I never went to the Fuehrer's headquarters. The reports took, at the utmost, ten to fifteen minutes. During the barely three years I saw Bormann perhaps twelve times. When I did not make a report to Bormann, my meetings with Bormann always took place among a large circle of people. During the time when I was in Munich I did have the Party badge in gold awarded to me by him, though. That was in 1943 on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the day on which Hitler became Reich Chancellor. But at the same time about twenty people from the Party Chancellery received that award, and I could not be left out because among those to whom the Party badge in gold was awarded at the time, there were several people who had joined the Party after me, that is to say, after 1933. I had no human contact with Bormann whatsoever, and nobody in the Party Chancellery had such contact. Conversations and relations with him generally were very cold, very impersonal. He never showed any human emotion, and I myself disliked him altogether for certain matters concerning his private life.
When I loft the Party Chancellery and wont to the Ministry of Justice I did not oven pay a farewell visit to him. I could arrange that fairly easily, because he was at the Fuehrer's headquarters, but I did not use the opportunity and I did not ask to be told when he came to Berlin to the office of the Party Chancellery there. That had another reason as well. When I left the Party Chancellery, several months before several persons had left the Party Chancellery and in the case of one or two Bormann, when they paid him a farewell visit, had given them a check. I wanted to avoid that under all circumstances, and that was the real reason why I did not go to say good-bye to him. As Undersecretary I never called on Bormann. Once I wrote a letter to him in his capacity as secretary to the Fuehrer as to when and if I should report to the Fuehrer and pay him a visit.
He replied that I should see to it that I had an impeccable uniform, as Hitler attached a great deal of importance to such exterior matters. As for months I couldn't do so in the circumstances prevailing in Germany then, I left it altogether to revert to the matter. Whenever I had to take up contact with the Party Chancellery I did so through the head of Department 3 or of the Justice Group 3-C.
Q. Those were your personal relations with Bormann. Now I have a few more questions relating to your work at the Party Chancellery. As early as 1941 Himmler as the chief of the German police, is said to have expressed the wish, that is to say, towards the Party Chancellery, that all Poles should be withdrawn from the administration of German Justice. At that time, in 1941, he intended to get the Poles under his own jurisdiction, that is to say, the jurisdiction of the SS and the police. According to my information, Bormann is said to have supported that plan of Himmler's to begin with. Will you give us your views on that?
A. In the summer of 1941 Himmler wanted to got the Poles exclusively under the jurisdiction of the police and withdraw them completely from the Administration of Justice -- these Poles, too, who lived in t the Reich. Bormann passed on the letter to me, and in a kind of memorandum I expressed my views on the matter. That was at a time when Bormann and Himmler cooperated very closely. Without regard to that fact I stated the development that would occur if those steps were taken. Above all I pointed out that the uniform administration of justice which had been established between 1933 and 1935 would be increasingly undermined and would disintegrate. I pointed out that the Administration of Justice since that time had first had the army administration of justice segregated from it, and that next the Reich Labor Service had had its own administration of justice established which made it possible for the labor service to pronounce prison sentences up to eight or nine months.
Furthermore, I pointed out that the SS and the police had been withdrawn from the administration of justice and that a completely independent SS and police judiciary had been created. That is to say. I described how the former work of centralizing the administration of justice had been undone through other steps, not to mention tho events that occurred during the war by way of the administrative and ordinance penal law, through which more large fields were withdrawn from the administration of justice. I achieve at least that Bormann returned my memorandum to me, and had noted on it: We will leave it to Himmler to discuss this mater with the Reich Ministry of Justice and to have it out with them alone. Himmler therefore did not receive that aid and support from Bormann which he had hoped for.
Q. Earlier, concerning your work in the Reichministry of Justice up to 1939, we discussed the Malicious Acts Law. When you worked at the Party Chancellery there is supposed to have been a plan of transferring the competence of prosecuting crimes against tho Malicious Acts Law from the Ministry of Justice to the Prosecutors General. What was your attitude to that plan at the time, and what position did you take up on that particular point?
A. From my own work during the years 1935 to 1939 at the Reich Ministry of Justice I knew the enormous amount of work those reports on malicious acts cases caused, and I know how the preparations, the work before the indictment was made or the proceedings were discontinued, was prolonged. An the same, coming from the field of the Party Chancellery, I had to stop it.
This was the reason that the Gauleiters again and again attempted to have the authority of approving the prosecution delegated to themselves. That was refused time and again with the reason that that was a matter to be dealt with by the Ministry of Justice and the Party Chancellery. At the moment, where a decision would have been made on the level of the District Courts of Appeal - that is to say, on the level of the General Prosecutor - whether the case was to be prosecuted or not, the Gauleiters quite easily would have prevailed on Hitler with their idea that the Party Chancellery could transfer the decision to them - the Gauleiters. The result would have been that the moderate application of the Malicious Acts law would have ceased, and the Malicious Acts law would have been applied with far greater severity and without uniformity in the various districts, because the Gauleiters would have forced their opinions on the General Prosecutors.
Q. Will you tell the Tribunal, please, at what time that plan was pending?
A. That plan came up several times, I believe, in '42 and '43.
Q. The indictment, Herr Klemm, charges you with having supported illegal extension of the concept of high treason and treason in its application by the People's Court. During the time you worked at the Party Chancellery, did you supervise the sentences passed by the People's Court?
A. We never checked up on the sentences passed by the People's Court, nor was any checking up on sentences possible, with so little staff as we had available. At Group III-C, the Justice Group, there were only six jurists, and at most times there were fewer jurists. In the years '41 to '42 there were only four of us.
Q. But you have stated at one time to have asked to see ten sentences passed by the People's Court. For what purposes did you do so?
A. Maybe it was ten sentences, may it was twice ten sentences. I don't remember the exact number. But that had a very particular reason. After Freisler had become President of the People's Court, he tried to establish particularly close contact with various Party agencies, bypassing the Ministry of Justice.
In the course of those measures Freisler also submitted to the training office of the NSDAP under Ley sentences passed by the People's Court for use as training material. The Training Office (Schulungsamt) made extracts of those People's Court sentences and issued them as material for speeches, that is to say, those extracts. These extracts had been made by a man who was not a jurist and a great deal of nonsense was contained in them.
We in the jurist group, Group III-C, saw it quite by chance. We heard how those extracts had been made. Thereupon, we asked to have the sentences sent to us to compare them with the extracts. We used the material to stop that nonsense going on. I would like to mention one example. Those extracts consisted of three sections. In the first section the facts of the case were described in brief. In the second paragraph the sentence was given, but with only a few clues, for example, death sentence, or ten years penitentiary. The third section gave the reason for the sentence.
In a sentence passed against a defeatist the phrase is found, "The sentenced person, after the seizure of power on the part of Hitler, made a very good living. Therefore he owed particular gratefulness to Hitler. He was not particularly grateful and therefore he is deprived of his civil rights." The extract said, "The person has been sentenced to death because he earned too much under the Third Reich." No other reasons were given. That such extracts could only injure the reputation of the Administration of Justice is obvious. Therefore we stopped that procedure, and that was the reason why once we asked for a considerable number of sentences passed by the People's Court.
Q. After, in August 1942, the post of the Minister of Justice had been newly filled, at the same time the organization of the so-called Gau Legal Offices and Reich Legal Offices was abandoned. Will you tell us, please, whether you at the Party Chancellery had anything to do with that.
A. In broad outlines I described that when I spoke about the circular letter which the Party Chancellery issued when Thierack became Minister of Justice. The dissolution of those Party institutions - or rather the closing down of these organizations in war time - that was the only possibility at the time. That was urged by the justice group so that Frank's influence and that of his instruments of power - I am referring to the Lawyers League (Rechtswahrerbund) at the Reich Legal Office - was to be eliminated. If the Reich Legal Office no longer existed, the Gau and District Legal Offices also ceased to function. The closing down of the Reich Legal Office happened to coincide with the appointment of Thierack to be Ministry cf Justice. He used that opportunity at last to carry it into effect.
Q. The prosecution in that connection produced Exhibit 47: that is NG-290. It is contained in Volume 1-A, page 47 and following in the German text. The first page of Exhibit 47 gives Hitler's orders that Frank, whom you just mentioned, has given up his posts. The third page of this exhibit deals with you. It is a letter signed by Thierack, dated 10 September '42. Thierack has added to his name: Oberbefehlsleiter of the NS-Rechtswahrerbund (Lawyers League). Here you are appointed liaison man of the head of the NS-Reehtswahrerbund - that is Thierack - to the Munich agencies of the Reich leadership. Will you explain to the Tribunal what you did in your capacity as liaison man?
A. That appointment was actually only on paper. I only went into action once, and that was when I negotiated with the Reich Treasury about the use of a site which was the property of the NS-Rechtswahrerbund.
Q Now we have finished with the group of questions which concern the party chancellery. Now, we are coming to the last phase, that is, your work as under secretary at the Reich Ministry of Justice. The Tribunal knows when you became under secretary. Now, I am asking you, did you, yourself, have any influence on your appointment to be under secretary in January 1944?
A No, I did not. During the last three months of 1943 I heard Thierack say to me that he was thinking it over whether he should propose me to be his under secretary; then, I heard nothing more. I only told the head of my department at the party chancellery about that remark of Thierack's.
Q At any rate, it was Thierack who appointed you, and it appears necessary that you should describe in some detail your personal relalions with Thierack. Would you do that, please, by using and referring to the documents which the Prosecution has submitted. I would like to tell the Tribunal that quite a number of documents are concerned from the list which I have submitted to the Tribunal. Exhibit 58 -- I will just read out the numbers: 62, 283, 466, 26, 68, 90, 39, 143, 41, 252, 451, 263, 290, 103, and lastly, 291. Would you begin, please.
A From November, 1929 until 1933 I worked with the Prosecution at Dresden as an assessor; and very soon I became permanent referent. At the same time Thierack was the senior prosecutor, with the office of the general prosecutor of the District Court of Appeals, Oberlandsgericht, Dresden. With the general prosecutor, complaints were dealt with concerning decisions by the prosecution to quash proceedings; among other things Thierack had to deal with complaints against decisions to quash penal proceedings which I at the Dresden prosecution office had issued. Particularly concerning the bigger questions we at the Dresden prosecution office were asked to report to the experts, the General Prosecutor, in order to discuss these matters. In that way I made Thierack's acquaintance. On 10th March, 1933, Thierack was appointed the delegate of the Reich Commissar for the Administration of Justice in Saxony.
Shortly afterwards he became Minister of Justice for Saxony. Immediately after the first appointment my superior, the senior prosecutor Fiernitz, at the Dresden District Court, Landgericht came to see me and told me that on that very day I was to report at the Ministry of Justice for Saxony. I had to go to Thierack and he told me that he wanted me to be his personal referent and adjutant. I was in civilian clothes I did not possess a uniform in those days, and I was not wearing a party badge. Thierack immediately told me that on duty and in the office, party badges were not worn -- at the Ministry we were jurists and not party members. A few days later another jurists appeared in a SA uniform. Thierack immediately sent him home to change into civilian clothes before he could pay further calls at the Ministry or could do any work there. A change in these matters only took place when Hitler or Hess gave the order that party badges had to be worn on official duty. The work as adjutant with Thierack was of secondary importance altogether. The work as personal referent concerned mainly reports on those files which had been submitted to the minister for his information or signature -- reports which came from the various experts, sachbearbeiters. The work further more consisted of looking through the mail. In addition, there were further special missions, chiefly concerning penal matters such as I described in the Hohenstein case. Our relations with each other were official and impersonal, frequently not without tactlessness and rudeness. I did not take that very seriously, for I was better of than other people for the reason because with me it usually happened when I was alone with him; but I saw it happen that the Ministerialdirector, both of whom were over sixty years of age, were treated in the same way, even in my presence. One of them until March, 1933 had been Thierack's superior. That impersonal and purely official relationship with Thierack was caused on the one hand by the distance between us due to the positions we held, and on the other hand on account of the difference in age of fourteen years.