When, a propose of my report, the then Under Secretary Freisler voiced some misgivings as to the opening of the case, Joel and I together emphatically demanded a complete clearing up and investigation of the affair. As subsequently the Party and SA agencies, especially Gauleiter Florian in Duesseldorf, tried to prevent by all means the clearing up of the case, Joel had several conferences with Gauleiter Florian, SA Gruppenfuehrer Knickmann of the SA Gruppe Niederrhein and several agencies of the Reich Leadership (Reichsleitung) in Munich and Berlin. I attended two conferences with Florian, two with Knickmann and one, in Munich, with persons I no longer remember. During all these conferences Joel expressed the point of view that the law must be satisfied and that sadistic acts such as happened in Kemna must be prosecuted under ell circumstances. I remember that Florian became very excited on account of Joel's opinions, as a result of which there was a sharp discussion between both during which Florian declared he would complain about Joel."
A little bit further down:
"In addition, I must mention that the 'Kemna Affair' also concerned the Supreme Party Tribunal in Munich. In February 1935 there was a trial there against the main defendants, in which I had to testify as a witness. Before I went to Munich, I was in Berlin. There Joel told me I shouldn't protect the bastards and should speak my mind."
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, I'm afraid we're not keeping our record quite as accurately as we should. Exhibits 5, 6 and 7 will be marked for identification by the Secretary General. They relate to documents numbered 3, 9 and 11 in the Joel Book. 3 in Joel Book 2, 9 in Joel Book 1, and 11 in Joel Book 1.
MR. KING: Your Honor, isn't that Document 30 rather than 3?
THE PRESIDENT: Document 30. I beg your pardon, 30 is right.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q As Exhibit 3 I have already submitted the Schnoering affidavit. It is Document 6 in Document Book 1 on page 30 through 32. From this document, I want to quote from page 30 in Document Book 1:
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
"After his successor (first Public Prosecutor Thiesen) and the new experts had been made acquainted with the penal matter 'Kemna', the latter expressed to me a number of misgivings regarding the continuing of the procedure. Especially the possibility of proving the individual accusations on the basis of the existing evidence - particularly in view of the judgment of the Party Court - was judged by them more conservatively and less optimistically. I could not ignore this and communicated these misgivings orally to Dr. Joel, whereby I was also guided by my experiences with the Wuppertal lay judges closely related to the Party. When, finally, I also heard from a Higher Party Office of the Gau of Duesseldorf, probably the District Officer Manager, Attorneyat-law Schroer, that Hitler himself had been approached in the matter (maybe as a result of the report to Lutze, mentioned above) and requested or demanded that the penal procedure be discontinued, I also passed this communication on to Joel with the suggestion that the Minister of Justice should try to obtain information in this direction, for, under such circumstances, a continuing of the procedure seemed impossible. If I remember correctly, Dr. Joel told me later that the Minister of Justice had acted accordingly and that he no longer could insist on the continuation of the procedure. At any rate, it never became known to me - and I also consider it impossible - that Dr. Joel at any time spoke in favor of a cancellation of the proceedings. He always advocated the ruthless carrying through of the proceedings and he was very much depressed with the eventual result of the cancellation. This is quite natural and comprehensible because he himself instituted the proceedings, and, in spite of an already heavy work load, he dedicated a great part of his strength to this cause and its being carried through energetically. If Dr. Joel, after others, without his assistance, had decided that on principle the proceedings should be discontinued, had made a rough copy of the report destined for Hitler, then he undoubtedly did it reluctantly, but as adviser in the matter he necessarily had to do it, by order. The positive representation of this report which attempts to see the individual facts everywhere as apt to prove and the Court No. III, Case No. 3.lack of mentioning the rather considerable difficulties of evidence is extraordinary remarkable and deviates from the report of the Chief Public Prosecutor in Wuppertal.
Joel, without any doubt, intentionally chose this form of the report. According to my opinion, he was guided by his great disappointment of the result of the penal proceedings instituted by him and by the intention, to represent the accusations as crass and as clearly proved as possible in order to make Hitler fully responsible for the cancellation and, maybe, to induce him once more to revise his decision."
Herr Winckler, whom I have just mentioned concerning Document 11, Exhibit 7, has submitted an affidavit, my document No. 13, that is contained in book 1, page 60.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, Dr. Haensel, will you wait just a moment?
DR. HAENSEL: Document book 1, page 60, my document 13, marked as exhibit 8 is offered for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Haensel, your purpose is to and the court in getting the full and fair understanding of your case and we wish to aid you in aiding the court. The reading of these affidavits is not in our opinion a proper part of the examination of Dr. Joel. If you had a document, such as these captured documents, and desired to examine him concerning the circumstances that is one thing, but this is quite another matter. We gain practically no benefit from your reading of the documents. We gain much benefit by reading them ourselves slowly and carefully.
Now I think you should proceed to examine Dr. Joel and if you have some documents, which ho must explain, you may feel free to use them. The reading of these affidavits is not part of his examination at all. We suggest that you discontinue reading them at this time. We observe that you have bracketed in red portions, which you consider of special importance and we will give them special consideration.
DR. HAENSEL: May I be permitted to make a brief remark? My idea was that there are a great many matters about which Dr. Joel can comment on much more quickly if I put them to him, instead of having him explain them in a more detailed way.
THE PRESIDENT: You may put them to him, but you may not proceed with this method of reading affidavits.
DR. HAENSEL: Witness, with reference to the "Kemna Affair", I would ask that you would discuss now the person of Dr. Winckler, who functioned as a prosecutor in the case, and had a sad experience in dealing with that case.
Did anything come to your knowledge, witness, as to what attitude the present government has taken as to Dr. Winckler and what do you know about the events that happened at that time, so that they could be compared; can you tell us this in a few brief sentences?
THE WITNESS: The prosecutor Winckler, who together with me, made the investigations against the guards at Kemna had in 1935, as he and his family were persecuted by local party agencies, to leave Wuppertal. At my request. Minister Guertner transferred him to Kassel. After the collapse in 1945, the inmates of the camp, who had been ill treated, approached the newly appointed minister of justice for North Rhine-West-phalia and the British Military Government and asked that the old referents reopen the case. Public Prosecutor Winckler on 23 May of this year was placed in charge by the British Military Government to investigate further the Kemna Affair. He has informed me that in 1945 he sent the five volumes of files, which we accumulated in 1934 and 1935, to the I.M.T. at Nurnberg and that until now he has not had them returned to him; in other words the five must be here.
DR. HAENSEL: In Elberfeld, the Association of Nazi Persecutes is now supporting Winckler and, consequently the Joel action. I am referring to Document 12 without reading it and it is in document book 1, page 58. I offer it as exhibit 9 for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification also exhibit 8.
DR. HAENSEL: I would now like to refer to the Schnoering affidavit, which I have already submitted as exhibit 3, document book 1, page 26.
The regulations about the Right of quashing Proceedings, which play a great part in this matter, are to be found under Joel Document 10, document book 1, page 54, To make the procedure understandable, I think it is necessary for me to submit this document. I am offering it for identification as exhibit 10, it is my document 10 on page 54 of document book 1. This is a Decree by the Fuehrer and Reich Chancellor, which says, speaking of Hitler:
"I reserve the right to quash criminal cases coming under the jurisdiction of the law courts, and official disciplinary proceedings, which are already pending in any disciplinary criminal courts." Dated 1 February 1935.
That is for the time which we are dealing here and I would like to point out that later things were handled differently, but during this period this decree was enforced. It is my exhibit 10.
The files concerning Kemna, I had asked for but I did not receive them. According to the information from Winckler whom I mentioned repeatedly the former co-- worker of Joel, who is now dealing with the matter upon the instructions of the British Military Government, five volumes of files compiled in 1934 and 1935 were sent to the I.M.T. in 1945. There is appossibility that those files are with the large stock of files of the I.M.T. which arc not accessible to us at the moment.
Witness, did the experiences from these penal proceedings in which you were active cause the Ministry of Justice to take measures?
THE WITNESS: Yes. The Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, repeatedly complained to the chief of the security police and to the Reich Minister of the Interior, who was in charge of the police.
When the oral complaints met with no success, we finally, at the order of Minister Guertner, drafted a protesting letter of the Minister of the Interior, Dr. Frick. That is the letter written by Guertner on 14 May 1935 to Dr. Frick.
DR. HAENSEL: That letter of 14 May 1935 is contained in my document book 1 as document 8. Because it is of great importance to us, I offer it for identification as exhibit 11.
THE PRESIDENT: That document does not come within the suggestion I made at all. It is not an affidavit, it is a document and you are at liberty to examine the witness with reference to it.
DR. HAENSEL: Yes. Witness, I consider this document important and it is particularly important as to how and where it came into existence. I thereofe want to recall to your memory several sentences from this document. As we have heard before, it is dated 14 May 1935 and it is addressed to the Reich and Prussian Minister of the Interior. At the beginning it says:
"Enclosed please find the copy of a letter by the Inspector of the Secret State Police dated 28 March 1935.
"The letter causes me to state my position in principle in the question of shastisement of prisoners. The numerous cases of mistreatment that have been brought to the attention of the judicial authorities show 3 different reasons for such abuses on prisoners:
1. Beating as internal punishment in concentration camps.
2. Mistreatment - usually of political prisoners - as a coercive measure to obtain statements.
3. Mistreatment of prisoners for pure wantonness or from sadistic inclination."
The Minister now refers in detail to these points: At 1 he refers to prisons and prisons of detention. He says that no requirement for introduction of beating as an internal punishment has been felt. I quote: "The experience of the judicial administration proves that well trained, reliable and conscientious guard personnel are able by employing strict discipline, to create and maintain an exemplary order within the institutions without resorting to thrashing."
THE PRESIDENT: The Time has arrived for our recess.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute. The Tribunal with some reluctance is about to rule on the offer of Exhibit 2, the Grauert affidavit. It is certified by Dr. Hansel that the signature of Grauert is authentic, and there is a paragraph at the beginning of the affidavit which states that the affiant is fully informed with regard to the results of an intentionally wrong declaration and gives the following affidavit to be produced at Military Tribunal III. Under the circumstances of the taking of the affidavit as set forth by Dr. Hansel, we are constrained to hold in this particular case that there is a sufficiently substantial compliance with our rule and the exhibit will be received. It is received.
Now, Gentlemen of the defense, you are all learned members of the legal profession. You can all read. We counsel you to read rule 21 of the rules of procedure of this Tribunal and to follow them. It doesn't take any intelligence, it simply takes care and we expect you to follow the rules and not present technical problems to the Court which are wholly unnecessary. I am sure you will realize that is only a reasonable request on the part of the Court. I am referring to the rule with reference to statements of witnesses in lieu of oath. There is a reason for that rule. We expect you to follow it. You may proceed.
MR. KING: At this time it may be well on the part of the Prosecution to say that we have no objections to the receipt in evidence of Exhibits 5 through 11, which were offered this morning prior to the recess.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 5 to 11 inclusive, are received in evidence.
MR. KING: Inclusive, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Inclusive - you may proceed.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: Witness, I have put to you Exhibit 11, a letter from Guertner, in order for you to read it, and I ask you to comment on this document, how it can about, and about the reference by the Central Office of the Prosecution to the document.
A: I have said already that the Reich Minister of Justice on account of the ill treatments in the concentration camps made complaints of a general nature to the Chief of the Security Police. When these complaints had no success, but, as can be seen from the beginning of this letter by the Reich Minister of Justice of the 14th of May 1935, were answered in a negative manner by the inspector of the Gestapo, the Minister of Justice considered it necessary to approach the person competent for the entire police in Germany, that is, the Reich Minister of the Interior. Therefore, he charged Mr. Haacke and myself with describing the occurrences to him as they had happened in certain camps. He also had himself informed about the fact that ill treatment of prisoners had occurred during police interrogations. Since the Inspector of the Gestapo apparently considered that these were ill treatments as disciplinary actions in the concentration camps, or as means to bring about a truthful statement in interrogations and thought he could justify it by doing so, the Minister of Justice was of the opinion that in consideration of the seriousness of these ill treatments that could not be a justification. Therefore, we drafted that statement of the general point of view to the Minister of Justice concerning ill treatment by police officers. It is expressed in detail in this letter, that it has been the experience of the administration of justice that statement made or obtained under duress are of no significance and that moreover the penal law that was in effect and which to carry out should also be the job of the Minister of Justice, requires that officials who commit ill treatments in office, should be threatened with special penalties.
A number of examples were cited from the camps which I had investigated in order to explain the seriousness of the ill treatments, and in a further sentence following the examples we stated that these few examples show such a large measure of atrocity which is an insult to the feelings of every German that it is quite impossible to even consider any mitigating circumstances. As a request to the Reich Minister of the Interior the letter closes with two points which I should like to read. The Minister of Justice says: "It appears to be necessary for the competent minister to issue to all police officials of all categories a directive prohibiting with out exception mistreatment of prisoners for the purpose of extorting statements. 2 - All mistreatments committed entirely or in part for personal motives must be followed up and punished by all state authorities concerned in close cooperation.
BY JUSTICE HARDING:
Q: What connection did you have with the writing of this letter?
A: The letter was drafted by my assistant von Haacke and myself and was reviewed by Senior Government Councillor von Donani, personal referent of the Minister Guertner and then the Minister of Justice himself also made a few additions.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: The content of the letter furthermore permits the conclusion that mistreatments occurred during interrogations by the police.
Now did the Minister thereupon order you to carry out investigation proceedings?
A: Yes, that happened, and that again in cases where the local offices on account of the resistance offered could not carry out such investigations. Two investigations which caused a great deal of commotion were the proceedings against the criminal police in Berlin, and against the members of the gestapo office in Duesseldorf. The proceeding against the officials of the gestapo in Berlin, concerned officials of the criminal police by the names of Winzer, Dunst, and others; the proceedings in Dusseldorf concerned two officials by the name of Heinemann and Schoeneberg. The resistance offered by the Chief of the Security Police could be eliminated. On account of the Dusseldorf proceedings it was necessary that I approach the gauleiter personally, because one of the police officials was the bearer of the Golden Party Badge. The investigation could be carried out, and the officials concerned received sentences amounting to considerable prison terms.
DR. HAENSEL: I would like to have submitted the files of these proceedings, and I have asked for them, but unfortunately I was unable to obtain them. Therefore, I have but one alternative, that is to submit an affidavit concerning the Dusseldorf proceedings too. Therefore, I submit for identification my document 17, from document book 1, on page 86, for identification as Exhibit 12, Volume 1, page 86. It is an affidavit by Senior Public Prosecutor, Robert Kottner, who was active in Dussseldorf and who now resides at Cologne. I shall refrain from reading it. I only submit it for identification.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification as Exhibit No. 12.
DR. HAENSEL: No. 12. May I continue?
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q After the Central Prosecution was dissolved, were you still charged with criminal proceedings against officials of the police concerning mistreatment in office?
A No. After the Central Prosecution was dissolved, neither Herr von Haacke nor I received any assignments of the aort from the Minister, not even concerning more severe interrogations.
Q I put to you document Exhibit 33, NG-310, in Volume, I-B, at page 56. That is the document book of the Prosecution. That is a document which you have initialed, together with other Referents, in 1934, wherein Hitler interfered for the first time as the supreme judicial authority in the Administration of Justice. The public of the world knows about these matters under the name of "Roehm Putsch", but it should really be called "Heydrich-Himmler Putsch", because those were the active participants.
Is it correct--as we can see time and again in the description of events--that Minister Guertner considered the matter closed by the law of 3 July 1934?
A No, that is not correct at all. The Reich Minister of Justice, Dr. Guertner, initialed an investigation of these occurences.
Q May I ask you first to look briefly at the document which I have put before you? And then we shall continue. That is Exhibit 33.
A Yes; that is the internal regulation of Department III of the Ministry of Justice according to which penal proceedings concerning interrogations under duress by the Gestapo should be handled by Senior Prosecutor Klemm. That internal regulation os of the 17th October 1937, and on that date Herr von Haacke and I no longer had anything to do with proceedings of that kind.
Q Would you kindly explain how, by order of Minister Guertner, you became active in connection with the so-called Roehm Putsch?
A We--Herr von Haacke and I--became active in connection with the events around the Roehm Putsch. As far as we knew, when the law of 3 July 1934 was issued, the proceedings concerning the killing of about 20 SA leaders, who had alledgedly been guilty of high treason, were affected. The rest of the punishable offenses were to be prosecuted; Hitler demonstrated that also in public in his speech to the German nation on the 15th of July of that year. Haacke and I, upon the initiative of Minister Guertner, made the necessary investigations. The police had not kept any records and did not become active. Therefore, we had to go to great pains to obtain the necessary information from other sources.
After a complete view had been gained of the events and Hitler had not kept his promise--the promise given in his speech of the 15th of July--Minister Guertner decided to report personally, first to Goering and subsequently to Hitler himself. Undersecretary Freisler, Oberregierungsrat von Donani, and I accompanied the Minister of Justice. Hitler and Goering demanded, very insistently, that these cases should be prosecuted. Goering did not say anything; that is, he did not contradict. Hitler first wanted to hear Himmler on the subject. Later I found out that Hitler believed that he had to quash the remaining cases, against the express intentions of the Minister of Justice. Only few proceedings were actually carried out. Personally, I remember the carrying out of one criminal case on account of the killing of a councilman in Waldenburg in Silesia.
Q Concerning this case, which is very interesting because it was really carried out, the affidavit by Haacke--that is my Exhibit 1, on page 11--states that the culprits were sentenced by the Court of Assizes of Broslau to considerable prison terms. Is that correct?
A Yes, that is correct.
Q I believe you should round a title out the picture, which resulted from the conditions under which the Central Prosecution had to be put in action. However, only give us short examples.
A The Central Prosecution always had to go into action, as I say when political opponents of the NSDAP were affected by criminal actions. Only in such cases, Party officials wanted to prevent the carrying out of the penal proceedings. I will mention a few cases, the cause of which can be found in the struggle of the NSDAP against the Catholic Church.
At Staade, members of the Party and its affiliated organizations had dragged a clergyman around through the streets of the city who was forced to carry a sign, which read: "I am a slave of the Jews." I overcame the resistance of the Gauleiter, who considered that action a quite comprehensible result of public opinion, and the proceedings were actually carried out. One of my assistants at Berlin had to represent the prosecution because threats were voiced against the local prosecution and the court. The result was prison terms. The judges, as far as they were members of the Party, were expelled from the NSDAP.
Then another case: The Reich Minister of Interior in Berlin had approved a public collection from the Catholic welfare Organization, Caritas, at Munich. The Bavarian Minister of the Interior who at the same time was a Gauleiter, did not recognize that approval. The people who went around collecting money were members of Catholic orders, monks and nuns, and Catholic citizens of Munich they were attacked by members of the Party and its organization and robbed of the money that had been collected. The police, upon instructions by the Bavarian Minister of the Interior and Gauleiter did not interfere. I immediately went to Munich, talked to the Gauleiter, conducted an investigation for about four weeks, and then initialed the prosecution of the case.
The culprits were punished. The Gauleiter complained in writing to Minister Guertner and wrote him, referring to me, that he would no longer tolerate having the Prussian Senior Prosecutor Joel conduct any official functions in his Gau.
I should like to mention one more case. Old Party members had taken a cruise on the Rhine, they had disturbed church services and attacked the police when they tried to interfere and had knowcked them down. The local Gauleiter wanted to prevent proceedings, the prosecutors conducting investigations were threatened that the Party would take steps against them. I decided that I myself would represent the case of the prosecution in the trial, and the result was prison terms. When I left the Court building hundreds of people demonstrated against me in the streets because I had caused the convicted individuals to be arrested in the courtroom.
One last example: A councilman Busch, at Crefeld, had been mistreated because of his former membership in the "Centrum Party." His brother, a lawyer, who had filed claims for the restitution of expenses incurred in medical treatment, was threatened by the SA and his house was shot at. I reported that case to the them Minister President of Prussia, Goering. I intervened with a unit of the regular police at Crefeld, and I removed the Police President and SA Oberfuehrer from office. Only after that was I ever able to start investigations down there. The culprits were later on sentenced.
DR. HAENSEL: I have tried to obtain the official files concerning these occurences in order to be able to submit documents. However, I was not successful, and here again I can only submit affidavits which elucidate these events.
I offer my document No. 16 for identification, it is in document book I, at page 84.
It is an affidavit by Friedrich Wilhelm Meyer. Furthermore, for identification, I offer as Exhibit 14 my Document 69. That is an affidavit by Hattingen which, however could not be taken into one of the three document books because it was received only after these document books had been completed. It will be found in a supplementary volume which has not yet been translated. Therefore, it will take some time until the English translation can be submitted to the Prosecution in this case. However, in order to have all my documents together, I should like to suggest nevertheless that this exhibit number be reserved for identification of that document.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 14-
DR. HAENSEL: Exhibit No. 14.
THE PRESIDENT: For what affidavit?
DR. HAENSEL: For my affidavit, Document Book--it will be 4 after the first 3. It is on Page 6, No. 69. Furthermore, I refer in this connection to Exhibit 15 which I offer for identification. It is Document 19 in my document Book on Page 94.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you give me the name of the affiant whose affidavit will be Exhibit 14?
DR. HAENSEL: Hattingen: H-a-t-t-i-n-g-e-n.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, regarding Exhibit 14, that affidavit has not been certified according to the rules. I have spoken with Dr. Haensel and pointed out to him that the document in its present form apparently is not admissible, and Dr. Haensel has said that he will resubmit it before it is processed in order to make it conform.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve that number for it.
DR. HEANSEL: Exhibit 15 is the affidavit Piesker, Document 19 on Page 94 of Document book 1.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification as Exhibit 15.
DR. HAENSEL: Concerning the Busch case, I offer for identification an affidavit by Busch as Exhibit 16. It is document Book 1 on Page 88.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: Then I refer again to the Diels affidavit which was already submitted as Exhibit 4, Document Book I, Document No. 7 BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Do you remember, witness, a case concerning corruption at a leading Party office; a case in which you were active in which you encountered particular difficulties?
A I remember many cases of that kind, and I shall give two examples. In the first one there were proceedings against three department chiefs of the Chancellory of the Fuehrer in Berlin who were guilty of embezzling money. The other is a case against the Deputy Chief of the National Socialist Civil Service League.
In the first case all leading party officers, with the exception of the Reich Treasury of the National Socialist German Workers Party, were working against us. In the second case, in addition to other difficulties, there was primarily the following: An official who belonged to the Reich Central Office of the German Civil Service League and who was also an employee of the Ministry wrote a defense plea from the files. Minister Guertner removed here. All these cases resulted in considerable prison terms.
DR. HAENSEL: I have tried to obtain these files from Berlin.
I requested them bit I did not succeed in receiving them. Therefore, I submit an affidavit by Thyssen for identification as Exhibit 17. It is in my document book II on Page 20, my document No. 27, the Thyssen affidavit, Document book II, Page 20, Document 27 for identification as Exhibit 17, and in the absence of the original files, I also refer to Exhibit 5 already in evidence -- the Jaeckel affidavit, Document II, my document No. 30, and I refer particularly to Page 34, Figure 5.
THE PRESIDENT: That is your exhibit 5, isn't it?
DR. HEANSEL. My exhibit 5.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 17 is marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: For identification, yes.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q Did the central Prosecution exist until the war?
A No, it was quite suddenly dissolved by Undersecretary Dr. Freisler in October 1937.
THE PRESIDENT: What was it that was dissolved? I did not understand.
THE WITNESS: The Central Prosecution.
DR. HAENSEL: Zentral Staatsanwaltschaft, that is a department of the Ministry or that sub-department where Dr. Joel was.
A (Continuing) The dissolution of that department occured in October, 1937, because it was alledged that its activities were no longer necessary. That was based on numerous complaints from Party offices to which Undersecretary Freisler acceded. But there was also a group of old Party members in the Reich Ministry of Justice that was very active for that dissolution and whose suggestions Undersecretary Freisler had accepted.
DR. HAENSEL: Here I should like to refer again to my Exhibit 1 affidavit von Haacke. It is in my document book No, 1 on Page 14 and I ask to be permitted, as an exception--and you will see the reason immediately--to read a passage from that document, because it sounds quite different when read from the affidavit than when it is stated by Joel. I read from Document Book 1, Page 14:
"Of course, such activity as described, resulted for Joel and myself in continual sharp hostility from Party offices, particularly as Joel and I, as professional officials only having entered the Party after the seizure of power and holding no office there appeared little authorized to act thus in the eyes of the Party offices.