The next Exhibit, Exhibit 172, the Prosecution, at this time, desire to read portions of NG-437, which begins on page 50 in the English document book 3-G. It is a rather long opinion but it will be clear, we believe, from the portions which we read. We will extract only a small portion of the entire document.
These are the sentences of the Special Court for the Stuttgart or of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Stuttgart.
"In the name cf the German people:
"In the criminal case against "l) the married merchant Ludwig Oehlbach.
"Born on 15 October 1092 in Frankenthal, residing in Singen, **** steinerstr. 24, at present under arrest in the suspects' jail in ******.
"For crimes as public enemies, the Special Court of the Supremo Court of Appeal for the district of Stuttgart in the session on 19 Nov. 1942, and which the following were present:
Division President CUHORST as president Landesgerichtsrat Dr. AZESDORFER as associate judge Amtsgerichtsrat FREY as associate judge assistant public prosecutor STEINLE as representative of the prosecution Secretary of justice RIEDER as reporter The defendant OEHLBACH is sentenced to death as a public enemy and dangerous habitual criminal for continuous crimes against regulations concerning war economy, continuous price control offenses, continuous comni*** and attempted fraud, grave embezzlement and forgers of documents."
We turn now to the next Page 51, and begin in the middle of the pa English text.
"OEHLBACH has a number of previous convictions. In 1912 he receiver at short intervals prison sentences for protecting prostitutes and after served his sentence he was transferred to a labor camp for 6 months, A number of prison sentences for embezzlement and fraud followed, the lasting a sentence of 4 months for fraud. In 1938 he was fined for negligent inflicting bodily injury and in 1940 he was fined for offenses against the law for the protection of the retail trade. For the crimes which are the subject of these proceedings the defendant OEHLBACH was arrested on 13 December 1941. On 16 January 1942 he succeeded in escaping. While escape he committed a number of other crimes, especially in the district of Villingen, in Schwenningen and in the vicinity of Germersheim. Several time during his escape he was discovered, once in Neckargerach and another time in Stuempfelbrunn, district of Mosbach. On both occasions he succeeded i escaping. On 11 May 1942 he was arrested in Germersheim. Another attorney escape was frustrated. On this occasion ho denied obstinately that he was wanted OEHLBACH and declared that he was Alfred JAECKLE of Schwenningen whose passport he had taken and falsified.
He made other attempts to escape from the suspects' jail in Stuttgan and from the local jail in Sigmaringen, but these attempts were frustrate Finally he tried to commit suicide by hanging in the local jail gen on 3 Nov. 1942, but at a time when the prison officials were in the cinity, so that they could cut him down in time. Since then, the defendant who has tried by all possible means to make main proceedings against him impossible, took very little food, so that he was physically very weak when the main trial against him was opened. In spite of that the considered the conducting of the main trial to be necessary. According to a observations of the court as well as according to the experts who were consulted, the defendant was able to understand the course of the main trial He also answered, when he really wanted the questions put to him. His do was in no way restricted. Furthermore, even if the defendant had not beer fit for a trial, the conduct of proceedings would have been permissible according to article 276 ff, of the code for Criminal Procedure, because defendant caused his weakened condition intentionally, with the object making a main trial against him impossible, his conduct therefore bring similar to that of a fugitive defendant. In view of the attention and the unrest the criminal conduct of the defendant caused among the population early sentencing is urgently necessary."
We do not wish to present the details of the crimes charged again the accused; we simply point out that on Page 64, the sentence is sign by the defendant Cuhorst and two others. We offer the Document NG-437 a Exhibit 182.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit 183, we read now the affidavit which is NG-573and appears on Page 66 and 67 of the English text. This affidavit is gin by Mr. Willy Steinle who was, as we noted a few moments ago, the assistant public prosecutor in the case Oelbach.
AFFIDAVIT I, Willy STEINLE, retired public prosecutor hereby state, on oath:
With reference to my former statement I would like to add the following:
In the case of OELBACH it would have been my duty to support the motion of the defense counsel for discontinuation of the proceedings, I think I remember that such a motion was made when OELBACH fainted and can no longer carry on with the proceedings. But it is also possible that the defense counsel had applied for an adjournment of the proceedings at the very beginning, by giving as a just reason that OELBACH probably would not be able to follow the proceedings, because he was too weak. If anybody else but CUHORST had been president, the matter would have been handled differently. But I did not dare cross CUHORST's obvious intention of caring on the proceedings under any conditions. If I had done so, I **** had reason to fear the CUHORST might take measures against me. At the time I still was a young assessor, whereas CUHORST was, in my eyes, the highest ranking judge of the Appellate Court of the district of Stuttgart, and was known for his intolerance of any opposition by any of the participants in trial. This attitude of CUHORST was a severe offense against the rules the court, and a sound reason for a petition for nullification. I should also like to mention, that CUHORST exorcised a brutal pressure on all people sons concerned, and that neither the competent judge nor the defense considared oppose the scandalous activity of CUHORST. CUHORST was unimpressed by the fact that the court physician gave injections to the unconscious OELBACH. I must admit that I myself considered OELBACH's treatment and the sentence passed on him by CUHORST, to be very wrong.
CUHORST was a judge who welcomed the rigour of the national *** laws and who was ready to apply them at any time, in order to give the national socialist state the necessary support thereby. He was a fanatic and convinced leader of the Party who, in spite of his comparative youth, held a position which he had obtained for political reasons and which he need would have got in normal tines, since he was known not to shine in the leg sphere.
I think it quite possible that he was called up so late at his owner wish, in order to disappear and to avoid his just punishment. CUHORST's tribunal could be described as a typical Party-tribunal, and the sentences of not correspond to the will of the people but to the personal wishes of CUHORST.
He was, therefore, the Executor of the criminal penal justice of the Third Reich.
(signed) Willy STEINLE.
These statements are true and have been made by me without constrain I have read them, signed them and made them on oath. Stuttgart, 10 January 1947 (signed again) "Willy STEINLE" There also appears the jurat signed by Henry Einstein, U. S. Civil; B-316209.
We offer NG-372 as Exhibit 183.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: I'd like the Court to turn again to Document Book 2, to page 28 in the English text. The decree which we are about to read from ** has reference to the next two cases from Document Book 3-G, which we will shortly present.
This is from the 1939 Reichsgesetzblatt, Part I, Page 752.
"The Decree of 14 April Concerning German Jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
"Article I - Setting up the Jurisdiction.
"Section 1.
"1. To carry out German jurisdiction in the Protectorate and Moravia: The German Provincial Court, Prague; the German District Court Bruenn and Prague; the German Local Courts, Boehmish-Budweis, Bruenn, DeuBred, Gitschin, Goeding, Iglau, Machrisch Ostrau, Olmuetz, Pilsen, Prag and Stakonita; are being established.
"2. Furthermore, the Reich Supreme Court and the People's Court carry out jurisdiction for the Protectorate Bohemia and Moravia.
"Article II - Extent of the Jurisdiction.
"Section 6.
"1. German nationals are subject to German jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia.
"2. Persons who are not German nationals are subject to German judge diction for offenses:
"a) to which German criminal law applies, "b) if they are prosecuted under a private action provided the and provided the action has been brought by German national.
"3. Furthermore, persons who are not German nationals are subject the Protectorate jurisdiction insofar as German jurisdiction is not being established by law.
"Section 7. German jurisdiction in the Protectorate of Bohemia Moravia excludes jurisdiction by the courts of the Protectorate unless wise provided.
"Article III - Execution of the Jurisdiction.
"Section 8. The German courts in the Protectorate of Bohemia and. Moravia administer justice in the name of the German people."
MR. KING: We turn now to Document Book 3-E again, to page 68 in the English text, as Exhibit 184. Me wish at this time to introduce two portions in Document NG-356:
"In the Name of the German People In the case of the mechanic Josef Weiss of Prague-Kehlen, born on 9 August 1908 in Olmuetz, national of the Protectorate, at present awaiting trial of this case, because of preparation of high treason, etc.
, the People's Court, 1st division, passed the following sentence on the basis of the trial of 14 December 1942 in which participated as judges:
Oberlandesgerichtsrat Dr. Koehler, president Kammergerichtsrat Rehse, SS-Gruppenfuehrer and Generalleutnant der Waffen-SS Pet***, Major-General Gempp, Kreisleiter Skoda, as representative of the Chief Reich Prosecutor Amtsgerichtsrat Treppens, as official registrar of the office Secretary of Justice Schreiber.
Defendant Weiss aided and abetted Czech communists in the Protectorate in the preparation of high treason and in the treasonable help to the enemy by passing on pamphlets after the fight against the Soviet Union broke out.
Therefore he is sentenced to Death and permanent loss of civic rights.
He will also bear the costs of the proceedings."
MR. KING: That is the opinion. We turn now to several additional documents in connection with this case. The first of which is to be found beginning on page 69 in the English text.
This is written from the Ploetzensee Prison in Berlin, dated 20 December 1942 and is address. to the Chief Reich Prosecutor for the Peoples Court, Berlin. The original shows that it is in the handwriting of the prisoner Josef Weiss:
"Plea for Clemency.
"In the session of the People's Court, 1st division, on 14 December 1942, I, Josef Weiss, born on 9 August 1908 in Olmuetz, Roman-Catholic, profession: mechanic, was sentenced to death for preparation of high treason.
former girl friend of my wife's by the name of "Nina" came to see me in my apartment in January this year and requested me to give 3 communist handbills and 2 books on Leninism to the son of my employer, "Louis", who repeatedly asked for them and to whom I gave them as received from her. I returned them to the woman the following day. From that day on I never met this an again since I forbade her to enter my apartment. Further are , I never engaged in political activities, was not member of any political party. The only association I was a member of was the one of the mechanics in Prague.
"I state and I assert, in the name of all what is holy to me, that I never intended to harm the Greater German Reich by this rash deed. I now know that I thereby made myself liable to punishment and I would like to convince you by honest gratitude and work and diligence that I repent that I permitted myself to be used as an intermediary and that it will be a lesson for me for the time to come.
"In conclusion to my plea, I ask you to grant pardon for my death sentence and to change it to penitentiary or any other sentence. I hope that you will not turn down my first and request to you and that it will not remain unsuccessful, hope that until the good end which I expect eagerly from you God will provide me with patience, fortitude and confidence.
Thanking you in advance I ask you again for pardon.
Signature:
Josef Weiss."
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask you a question?
MR. KING: Yes, sir.
JUDGE BRAND: Does your records show in what territory the trial against this man was held? I didn't find it.
MR. KING: I think the original record will show that the trial was held in Berlin, your Honor, but I will verify that and if the fact is at variance with that I will so state.
THE PRESIDENT: Before referring to the documents which I think will be under this exhibit number, we will take our morning recess.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. KING; We continue reading from document NG-356. We turning now to Page 71 of the English text in Document Book 3-G. This is a letter from the defense counsel for the prisoner Josef Weiss. The letter is addressed to the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court. It is dated February 15, 1943. We will read only portions of this but will indicate ******** graphs as we come to them.
"In tho case against Josef Weiss from Prague-Kehlen, the accused has been condemened to death and permanent loss of civic rights by judgment of the first division of the People's Court of 14 December 1942 for being an accomplice to treason and to high trea son by aiding the enemy.
"As his defense counsel be has asked me to make an application for pardon.
"I, therefore, beg you to recommend to the appropriate authority that the sentence passed be changed to one of imprisonment by exercising the right of pardon."
We turn now to the top of page 72:
"In this connection, I have the honour to lay before you the following facts:
"The condemned has never been politically interested, **t alone politically organized. All his relations are German citizens and are living partly in the Reich, partly in the Protectorate. His brother-in-law, Hans Opalks, is employed by the security police, the sister, Frl. Liese Weiss, is working at an airfield at Prague and his mother receives a state pens on. The condemned has been brought up the German way, has attended a German school, and has always been an evowed German. He also was a member of the athletic club and other German sports clubs.
"he has never been politically active. Out of love for his non-Ayran wife alone, he did not report as a German after setting up of the Protectorate and remained a national of the Protectorate. In deference to his wife he remained alo of from all political activity and devoted himself to his work Corresponding investigations will prove the correctness of these statement.
"He did not know that "Nina" (Anna Kopalewa), who was slightly acquainted with his wife and who visited the latter only occasionally, was, an out-and-out communist. During one of her visits to the house of the condemned she accidentally not there the son of his employer, Boris Geluatjew, but no political discussion took place. Both left together, and the condemned man is completely ignorant of the conversation which took place between these two. In any ca*** Boris Geluatjew asked him next day, if Anna Kopalowa **** not given him "something to read" for kin. When this happened after a few days, and Nina gave him a parcel of books or other printed matter wrapped on newspaper, which he could not read, because they were in Czech, and in the contents of which he was not interested, he did not refuse to take out of social considerations, and without giving much thought to their contents, purpose, and effect he handed then to Boris G., to when as the son of his employer he thought himself under an obligation and whose potential intercession with his father he did not want to forfeit. In the same way and in the same wrapping he received it back. This was repeated once or twice since Boris G. enquired frequently and a sked him to act as intermediary."
We turn now to Page 73, the third paragraph from t******t of the page in the English text:
"He remembers quite clearly that these packages were always wrapped in newspaper when received, handed on, unopened.
received , handed on, uponed, received back, and redirected to Nina.
"Besides , Boris G. will be able to confirm that between him and the condemned nothing was said about the contents of the paper which would have been likely, if the condemned would have been interested in the contents and in influencing Boris G., or if on the other hand Boris G. had intended to convict the condemned of Anti-German endeavors. I ask that Boris G., in case it should be relevant for a declared on the pardoning, be heard on this matter.
"With regard to the preceding remarks I beg you to examine the petition for a pardon and to grant it.
"Attorney for the Defense; A. Gruenwald, Notary Public."
We call attention only to one final note on Page 77, which we will not read, but only summarize to the effect that Jose. Weiss was executed in Ploetensee on 28 April 1943.
We therefore offer as Exhibit 184 the Document NG 356.
JUDGE BRAND: Was that addressed to any defendant in this case?
MR. KING: Which letter, Your Honor?
JUDGE BRAND: Of the defense attorney.
MR. KING: Oh. It was stated generally to be to the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the Peoples Court. At the time the defendant Lautz held that positon, although the letter does not mention his name specifically.
The next document which we wish to present and introduce at this time is NG 350 which, when for ally offered will beg Exhibit 185. That is to be found beginning on Page 86 of the English text.
THE PRESIDENT: There seems to be a difference of opinion among the Tribunal as to whether counsel offered Exhibit 184.
Document No. 356.
MR. KING: If I did not, Your Honor, I intended to c******l Document NG 356 as Exhibit 184.
THE PRESIDENT: Not knowing whet her it has been ruled upon I will rule now. It is received in evidence.
MR. KING: The record may show some duplication. May I say at this time for the benefit of the defense-counsel that after the case which I am next going to present we will the proceed to Document Book 3-H.
"In the name of the German people, in the criminal proceedings against the miner Josef Jamrozy from Michalkowitz, born on 6 July 1906 in Schlesisch-Ostrau, the miner Emil Dolas from Michalkowitz, born on 16 January 1911 in Michalkowitz, the miner Josef Voverka of Michalkowitz, born on 17 March 1910 in Sobesovice, all subjects of the Protectorate and at present in detention pending judicial i******gation for preparation for high treason, and other charge the People's Court, 6th Senate, on the strength of the trial at which attented as judges:
"Volsgerichtsrat Hartmann, Presiding Judge, Landgerichtsdirektor Dr. Lorenz, SS Oberfuebrer Tscharmann, SA Brigadefuehrer Hauer, Ministerialrat Singer , as deputy of Chief Public Prosecutor; Amtsgerichtsrat Rathmeyer, has judged:
"The defendants Jamrozy and Dolass have, until October 1941 been active in the Protectorate as functionaries" of the Communist Party in an organizing and agitating capacity. For having treasonably aided the enemy in conjunction with prepartation for high treason they are therefore sentence to death and to loss of their civil rights for life We turn to page 87, the last Paragraph on that page.
"It has thus been proved that the defendants Jamrozy and Dolas were active as functionaries of the KPD" - which is the Communist party, which would be clear if I had read the preceding portions of the opinion - "and that the defendant Voverka was an ordinary member of the KPD. The defendants were aware of this while engaged in their activities, nor did they have any doubt as to the aims of the KPD. As a section of the Komintern, the KPD aims at establishing a workers' and peasants' dictatorship of the proletariate in the territory of former Czechoslovakia and, since the foundation of the Protectorate, its abolition by force and its separation from the German Reich.
"The defendants, being politically interested and maintaining a hostile attitude to the German Reich, were acquainted with these aims. The statements which the leading functionary Bohac made at a meeting of his group in the presence of the defendants Jamrozy and Voverka as par ticularly illuminating regarding the aims of the KPD. They culminate in the statement that the Red Army would soon march into Czechoslovakia and put an end to the German rule. Accordingly, all three defendants are guilty of preparing territorial as well as constitutional high treason within the meaning of articles 80, paragraphs 1 and 2, 83, Paragraphs 2 and 3, Nos. 1 and 3 of the Criminal Code.
"Furthermore, the defendants Jamrozy and Dolas have also fulfilled the prerequisites of treasonably supporting and giving aid to the enemy under article 91b of the Criminal Code. Every Communist who after the outbreak of the war against Bolshevism continues to work for Communism, thereby promotes the enemies' plans for the annihilation of the Reich and adversely affects the war potential of the Reich by contributing through his undermining activities towards a weakening of the German homefront. At least every functionary who holds a more senior p****** in the illegal organization realizes this consequence of his anti-crime activities. For that reason, the defendants Jamrozy and Dolas also were aware of the significance of their actions. In the case of the defendant Voverka, on the other hand, the Senate does not consider it proved that he realized this significance, and he must be regarded as a hanger-on rather than as a driving force.
"The defendants Jamrozy and Dolas had therefore to be sentenced for treasonably supporting and giving aid to the enemy in conjunction with preparation for high treason and the defendant Voverka for preparation of high treason.
"If the conditions for article 91b, paragraph 2, of the Crime Code do not exist, the above articles only leave the alternatives of the death sentence or imprisonment with hand labor for life. Article 91b, paragraph 2, of the Criminal Code is, therefore, not applicable because the possibility cannot be excluded that serious consequences might arise from the action of the defendants by reason of the manner and the extent of their activities. From the two sentences which are therefore permissible in the cases of defendants Jamrozy and Bohac only the highest sentences can fulfil the purpose of the punishment. These **************** defendants worked until the late Fall of 1941 as authoritative officials and thereby constituted a considerable danger to order and the peace in the Protectorate. In this way they placed themselves, in the worst time of trial of the German people, on the side of the enemy, and so forfeited their right to continue living under the protection of the German******* They have proved themselves such dangerous enemies of the German******* that the people can only be protected against them effectively by ***** death sentence. In the case of the defendants Jamrozy and Dolas the death sentence was therefore considered the only appropriate and correct atonement."
That is all of this document that we wish to read at this time and we therefore offer as Exhibit 185 the document NG 350.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May we invite the Court now to turn to Document Book 3-B
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May the Court please, having done a little cutting and fitting, Document NG 337, which is the last document in Book 3-E, and now, we believe, be coherently presented.
This document begins on page 114 of the English book, which is page 127 in the German. This appears to be the verdict of the district court Neumarkt:
"In the name of the German people. Verdict. District Court Neumarkt pronounces in the case against Jan Lopata, Polish farmhand in Bodenhof at present detained for assault, in the court's public session of 28 April 1942" - we will omit the reading of the judges and prosecutors "on the basis of the trial: Jan Lopata, Polish farmhand, at present in detention, is sentenced to an imprisonment of two years in a prison camp for the crime of assault according to Article 185 of the Penal Code, together with an infringement according to Article 1-a, 7 of the Polish regulation of the governor of Regensburg, dated 28 May 1940 and of ** December 1941, both in connection with Articles 3 and 14 of the penal decree for Poles."
THE PRESIDENT: What page is that on?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: One hundred fourteen, Your Honor, 127 in the German. Supplying a brief omission in the English: "You are sentenced to a prison camp term for two years and to a fine of 35 Reichmarks, and in default of ** ment, an additional week in prison camp and to the costs for the trial and the execution of the sentence." The local court verdict in Neumarkt continue on page 116 of the English, 128 in the German.
Reasons "The accused, who is a pole, and who on 1 September 1939 was resident at Kajscewka, in the district of Myslenice, in Poland, was employed as agricultural laborer by the farmer, Therese Schwenzl, at Bodenhof in the part of Muehlen.
In the beginning of February 1942, Frau Schwenzl together with the accused and a Polish maid were cutting chaff. The accused stood to the right of the chaff-cutting engine. Without speaking, he suddenly touched by hand over her dress Frau Schwenzl's private parts. When thereupon she said: "You think nothing terrifies me. You think you can do this to me because my husband is ill, the accused just laughed and repeated his action. On this Frau Schwenzl struck him across the face. In spite of this he did it a air. Finally, he had a quarrel with the Polish maid and left his mistress alone.
"On 8 February 1942, the accused left his place of employment without permission and was arrested on 9 February, when calling at the employment exchange at Neumarkt/Opf."
"These circumstances are proved by the witness's quite trustworthy statement under oath. The foolhardy denial of the accused is disproved by statements made by the witness."
"In the witness Schwenzl's description there is nothing to prove that perchance the accused used force against the witness. Therefore, no case of indecent assault according to Art. 176, Penal Code, is being submitted, instead of a case of ordinary assault. " "No sentence has been proposed pursuant to Art.
2 of the decree concern the wage scale regulations of 25 June 1938. The accused's quitting of his j** cannot be punished under Art. 2, 8 of the ordinance, dated 5 September ****.
dealing with the treatment of foreigners, since it has not been clu******** that the accused had left the place where ho stayed at the time of a public summons."
Turning to the next page, 117, which is a hundred thirty in the German, we find this verdict of the Neumarkt District Court, signed by presiding judge in confirmation of the previously read sentence of two years in a prison camp and fine of 35 Reichsmarks, which we noticed on page 114. This camp continues on page 119, which is page 132 in the German. On page 119 we find a decision of the Reich Supreme Court, dated 21 July 1942. (That date appears on the following page.)
"In the case against the polish agricultural. laborer, Jan Lopata for assault among other things the supreme Reich Court, first criminal division, in secret session of 14 July 1942 has decided with regard to the appeal for nullification of the Chief Reich Prosecutor.--"
May the Prosecution interpolate here a moment? That is a cl****** lation of a term that is by now familiar. They don't mean "an appeal or nullification. " That is just a nullity plea, such as has been mentioned in this court many times.
"The sentence of the Lower Court at Newmarkt dated 28 April 1942 is annulled with its relevant findings in as far as the accused was sentence for assault. In this connection the case will be returned to the Lower Court namely to the Special Court at Nurnberg, for a new trial and sentence.
"Reasons. According to Art. 185, Penal Code, in condution with Art. I** and XIV of the criminal code for poles, the accused has been sentenced to the years at a detention camp by the sentence referred to. The sentence has been declared valid. " "The Chief Reich Prosecutor has raised and applied for nullity plea, to suspend the sentence by resolution and to return the case to the lower inat* namely the Special Court at Nurnberg for a now trial and sentence.
application has been granted."
"The judgment passed by the Lower Court is defective in law insofar as does not discuss in detail whether article 4 of the law against Public Enemies of 5 September 1939 is applicable at all.
That this is applicable seems to be apparent according to the facts established."
"With this judicial error the judgment has become unjust, since if al* Article 4 of the Public Enemy Law is applicable, a thing which seems rather probable, a much more severe sentence is deemed necessary."
On the following page, this decision of the Reich Supreme Court, certain signed and stamped 21 July 1942, Next follows the indictment at the special Court in Nurnberg which is found on page 118 in the English, and 131 in the German:
"I. Indictment for the Special Court for the district of the Appellate Court at Nurnberg."
"Lopata, Jan. Bachelor, Agricultural laborer, born 24 June 1916, now in detention in the prison at Neumarkt since 25 March 1942 is adequately suspected of making use of the extraordinary conditions caused by the war, having intentionally insulted another person by an act for which the sound sentime of the people seems to demand a punishment in excess to the ordinary ******** because of tho special vileness of the criminal act."
"The accused is a pole. On 1 September 1939 he was living in the formed Poland, Since March 1940 he was employed as agricultural laborer by the farm Therese Schwenzl at Bodenhof."
"In the beginning of February 1942, whilst working, he repeatedly t*** through her dress the private parts of the farmer Therese Schwenzl, inspite of being strongly repulsed."
"Hereby, he made use of the war conditions. He know that the supervision of foreign labor was aggravated by the shortage of labor power; besides he thought he would not be denounced in order not to lose him as laborer."
This indictment continues on page 111 of the English book, 121 in the German. We will omit reading the rest of the indictment except to ******* Court's attention to tho fact that it is dated "Nurnberg, 18 August **** it is signed by tho Chief Public Prosecutor for prosecution with the Special Court, Dr. Schroeder. Following the indictment for the second trial at the Nurnberg Special Court, the judgment of the Nurnberg Special Court is found, beginning on page 101 in the English, which is page 110 in the German:
"Verdict In the Name of the German People.
The Special Court for the district of the Appelate Court Nurnberg, at the District Court Nurnberg-Purth, pronounces the following sentence in the case against lopata, Polish agricultural worker.
The sentence was pronounced in the session on 26 October 1942, persons present were: The presiding Judge: Landesgerichsdirector Dr. Rothaug. The Associate Judges: Dr. Ferber and Dr. Pfaff "The Prosecutor at the Special Court:
First Prosecutor Paulus Lopata Jan born on 24 June 1916 in Kayscowka, single, Polish agricultural worker, last place of abode Bodenhof, in jail awaiting trial for this case is, by application of articles II, III and XIV of the decree concerning Poles and Jews."
Reasons "l). The accused is a Pole; he belongs to the polish ethnical group.
He grow up in Kayscowka as son of a farmer and cattle dealer, he went to school for 6 years according to local custom. He cannot read, calculate and write. According to his testimony the parents of the accused died over 20 years a "2). After he reported voluntarily the accused was assigned by the lab office Neumarkt to work for the farmer Josef Schwenzl in Bodenhof district Neumarkt/Oberpfalz.
In the beginning of February 1942 - on a day which can no longer be clearly specified -- the wife of farmer Schwenzl, together with the accused and a Polish girl chopped straw in the barn. The accused was standing on the righthand side of the machine to carry out the work. Suddenly in the middle of the work, the accused, without saying anything, touched with his hand the genitals of the wife of farmer Schwenzl through her skirt. If she said after this unexpected action of the defendant: "you hog, do you th I am not disgusted about anything, you think you can do that because my husband is sick", the accused laughed and touched, in spite of this dissuasion -