and Exhibit 17. One has already been submitted and the other one announced. I shall also submit for identification as Exhibit 43, my document No. 62 in document book 3 on page 53 of my document book 3. That is to be Exhibit 43, the affidavit Best.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. I did not get your paging on that, what is your document number?
DR. HAENSEL: It is my document No. 62 in document book 3 on page 52, an affidavit by Dr. Werner Best.
Also an affidavit by Gritzbach, in this case I should like to submit an affidavit which I received only a few days ago and which has not yet been translated. It is Exhibit No. 44. The Prosecution will also receive it later to state its position.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve No. 44 for that exhibit.
DR. HAENSEL: Please tell us something about Thierack's reaction to your efforts to get out of the Ministry?
THE WITNESS: Thierack did not know anything about that. But, as I stated, soon after he assumed office he called me into his office and merely stated I was to leave the Reich Ministry of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question, Dr. Joel? How long did you serve in the Reich Ministry of Justice after Dr. Thierack became the Minister?
THE WITNESS: About one year, Mr. President. When Minister Thierack told me I had to leave, I asked him to release me from the Civil Service. Thierack replied what would happen to me would be decided by him.
DR. HAENSEL: You also discussed your possible transfer to the Ministry for Armament Production; what became of that plan?
THE WITNESS: The Ministry for Armament Production had agreed to take me into their legal department. Since Thierack had refused to release me from the Civil Service, I asked the official in question to speak to Thierack himself and to ask for my release.
DR. HAENSEL: Would the Tribunal please permit me one more question? The Prosecution refers to Exhibit No. 54, that is your introduction Court No. III, Case No. III.
into the office in Hamm, what can you say about that?
THE WITNESS: I cannot say anything about that. I was introduced, that is all. A very short explanation, is it not?
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until tomorrow morning at the usual hour.
(A recess was taken until 6 August 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Alstoetter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 6 August 1947, 0930-1630 The Honorable James T. Brandt, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III. Military Tribunal III is now in session. God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Marshal, will you ascertain if the defendants are all present?
THE MARSHAL: May it please your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert and the defendant Barnickel, who are absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: We have made inquiry concerning the defendant Barnickel and he is again excused for today.
The defendant Engert has been excused.
Let the notation be made.
DR. HAENSEL: I ask to be permitted to continue my direct examination of Guenter Joel.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
GUENTER JOEL (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
DR. HAENSEL: Yesterday we had arrived at the introduction of Guenter Joel into office at Hamm. Now I submit, for identification, as Exhibit 45, my document No. 51, the affidavit of Vogel, from document book III, at page 20; that is at page 20 in the English book.
THE PRESIDENT: You are offering that as Exhibit 45?
DR. HAENSEL: Yes, 45, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be marked for identification Exhibit 45.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Vogel was an official of the Administration of Justice of Hamm.
I don't know whether you still remember him, witness. He says in his affidavit that the remembers the introduction into office of Dr. Joel at Hamm because representatives of the Sate, of the Armed Forces, and of the Party appeared in full iniform, whereas Joel himself were a gray summer suit. It must have been summer then. Do you remember, on the basis of all that, when it was?
A Of course I can remember, it is also to be found in a document It was on the 17th of August 1943.
Q We have already heard that your transfer to Hamm had been disposed of quite some time previously, but, as I understood you, you only found about that decision--which was made at an ealier date-later. Would you please explain to the Tribunal since when the question of your transfer was pending, and how that threat of a transfer influenced your work at the Ministry under Thierack?
A I have already explained that immediately after Thierack assumed office in September of 1942, Theirack called me into his office and told me that I could not remain in the Ministry. I asked him at that time to be permitted to leave the Civil Service. He rejected that and he told me to tell him as soon as possible whether I agreed to my transfer. I did not do that. In the month of November he again called me into his office. I remember clearly that it was on the 27th of November--the 26th or the 27th of November. He told me that he had not received any statement from me and that therefore he would have to dispose over me. In December of 1921 was informed that my assignment as liaison man to the police no longer was made us of, that he made a different arrangement with the Chief of the German Police.
During the following months--that is to say, at the beginning of 1943--I was informed by an official in the Personnel Department that my appointment as General Prosecutor had been initialed. Then, in the subsequent months, I did not hear anything about a possible appointment or a possible transfer. Thierack did not speak to me about it any more.
In the month of May, 1943, I found out from the Personnel Department that the decree of appointment was already in Thierack's desk drawer. In July of 1943, together with the Chief of the Penal Department, I made a trip to find emergency quarters for the department on account of aerial warfare. I was in Berlin on a Sunday, and when the subsequent Monday morning, I went to the Ministry- that was the l6th of August, 1943- I happened to meet Under-Secretary Rothenberger, who was just going to the railroad station in order to introduce me the next morning in Hamm. Until that moment I did not know anything about it myself. At 12 o'clock noon, on Monday, Under-Secretary Rothenberger took me with him in his car, and at 1 o'clock we drove from Berlin to Hamm where everything was already prepared for my introduction into office, and the next morning I was introduced.
Q You were appointed General Prosecutor in Hamm, and in December of 1943, for the first time, you had something to do with NN Cases. The prosecution has submitted several documents regarding NN cases, but only those can possible concern you which came to your attention after you had assumed, office in Hamm, that is, after the 17th of August, 1943.
I have had Volume VI submitted to you, and I shall refer to the following documents? Exhibit 324, Exhibit 328, Exhibit 330, Exhibit 308 and from Volume I-C, Exhibit 80.
I ask you now to comment about your connection with NN Cases.
AAs for penal cases against inhabitants of the Occupied Western Territories concerning offenses against the occupying power, with which the Administration of Justice had to do since 1941 and 1942, I only got in touch in September 1943. At the Reich Ministry of Justice I never had anything to do with the handling of NN cases nor knew anything about them. I never found out anything about them either because of the special regulations concerning maintenance of secrecy. I found out, after assuming office in Hamm, that my subordinate Senior Prosecutor at Essen was handling NN cases.
The military courts in Belgium submitted to him records of investigations. He filed indictments with the District Court at Essen.
In NN cases the Central Prosecutor had no possibility to make any decision because the Reich Minister of Justice re served the right of any more important decision which otherwise would be made by a prosecutor.
By the circular Decree of the 6 February 1942, which has been submitted hero as Exhibit 308, the Senior Prosecutors had to submit the indictment and the demand for punishment that they expected to make, the fact that they did not wish to file an indictment, that they wished to cancel the warrant for arrest, the Reich Ministry of Justice and ask for its approval, or procure evidence from abroad to.
As things were, I could only make suggestions as General Prosecutor. Moreover, I had to pass on these reports to the Ministry of Justice. It also happened in individual cases that tho Ministry of Justice immediately got in touch with the Senior Prosecutor at Essen. Decisions which came down from the Reich Ministry of Justice I had to pass on without any possibility of changing them to the Senior public Prosecutor.
I am speaking now of Document 80, NG-482, Bock I-C, P-78. That is a decree by the Reich Minister of Justice of 28 February 1944 which was directed to the President of the District Court of Appeals at Hamm and was submitted to me for information. The Reich Ministry of Justice criticized in that decree the point of view taken by tho Special Court at Essen which judged the possession of hunting arms more leniently that the possession of fire arms belonging to the army.
As can be seen furthermore from the decree, the Reich Ministry of Justice, by directive of the 13 July 1943; had instructed the Senior Public Prosecutor at Essen to handle the questions of possession:
of hunting arrows or army fire arms in the same manner. The sentence at the Special Court of Essen of the 7 December 1945 had not allowed that instruction. Therefore, the President of the District Court of Appeals was requested to explain to the Special Court, the opinion of the Reich Ministry of Justice in these cases. As general Prosecutor I did not have any steps to take in that matter and I did not take any stops.
One general instruction of the Reich Ministry of Justice concerning dealing with NN cases passed through my office during my term of office. It is a decree by the Reich Ministry of Justice of the 21 January 1944, Exhibit 328. It is in Document book of the Prosecution No. VI, Page 112. It deals with the transfer of NN prisoners, who had been acquitted or who had served their term, to the Gestapo.
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number are you referring to?
DR. HAENSEL: 328, your Honor.
A (Continuing)- That regulation by the Reich Ministry of Justice had to be passed on to the Senior Prosecutor at Essen. As I was informed at that time, the Military Courts only transferred cases to Germany, if they could expect a conviction, with certainty. Therefore, this seemed to me, to be a decree which could hardly be applied because prison terms, for offenses against the occupied power and for illegal possession of fire arms, usually were for several years, and therefore, cases were the individuals had already served their term would simply not occur.
In addition, the Reich Ministry of Justice had issued a general directive so that the Senior Prosecutor at Essen wouldn't even have consulted me. Moreover, sentences were not served in my district, evidently because we were too close to the Western front. In other words, I had no NN prisoners. During the time when I had connection with NN cases not a single case to my attention where an NN prisoner, who had served his term, was turned over to the police.
As for further thoughts about the fate of these NN prisoners who had been acquitted or had served their term, I was relieved of them, because in the beginning of 1944 the transfer of the NN court at Essen to the district of the District Court of Appeals Kattowice at Kattowice was discussed on account of the enemy threat to the West, and in fact that was accomplished on 14 March, 1944.
As for the secrecy, at a conference with General von Falkenhausen at Brussels and his judge advocate, we had agreed that prisoners who were acquitted or who had been convicted, if the war should last a considerable time, should be afforded an opportunity of serving their term and then to return to their homeland. I considered the part played by the Administration of Justice in these matters, which really belonged to the competency of the military courts, a sort of legal remedy and this matter itself is a matter of the armed forces.
In Brussels I found out that Belgians knew where their compatriots were sentenced; that in the summer of 1943 people who had been acquitted had returned home and that Germans attorneys had some connection with dependents of Belgians who had been convicted. Methods of secrecy, therefore, in this sense, were not complete. I did not take any steps. The trials before the Special Court at Essen were conducted just as trials against Germans. Defense counsel were appointed and that defense counsel became active in the course of the trials was evident from the record.
Document Exhibit 330 is an excerpt from a situation report of 26 January 1944. 0 passed on a suggestion received by the Senior Prosecutor at Essen to expedite trials against inhabitants of occupied countries with the Chief Reich Prosecutor.
Furthermore, I suggested, when approval to file an indictment was requested, that the files should not be sent to the Reich Ministry of Justice. That suggestion was made because there was reason to fear the loss of the files due to bombings.
Then, if I furthermore considered interrogations of witnesses abroad superfluous and stated so, that was done because such interrogations were carried out in Belgium by German officials and I did not see why there should be an obligation to ask for a special approval.
Dr. Mettgenberg and von Ammon paid me a visit at Hamm on the 5th of November 1943 in order to discuss with me whether it would be possible to transfer Dutch NN cases to Essen. I affirmed that. My point of view to leave NN cases at Essen was due to the fact that for one thing, the armed forces and I did not want to move the Belgians any further from their homeland. Secondly, the NN prisoners who were sentenced in Essen could be quartered at the penitentiary of Papenburg where they were safe from bombings, and thirdly, because my prosecutors asked me not to be transferred to the East.
Q: In addition to Exhibit 524 in Volume VI, may I call your attention to Exhibit 504. That is in Volume VI supplement. On account of the date, I should like you to look at it.
A: From Exhibit 504 it can be seen that on the 15th of March 1944, instead of the special court at Essen, the special court at Oppeln became competent for inhabitants of Belgium, In conclusion I should like to state that for about five months I had to do with NN cases and that upon my instruction or with my knowledge, during my time of office until the 1st of March, 1944, not one NN prisoner was transferred from the administration of justice. Instruct tions which came down after the 1st of March, 1944, from the Reich Ministry of Justice did not concern me any longer. From that time I did not hear anything about the handling of NN cases any longer.
Q: In connection with the NN cases I should like to submit, for identification, the Affidavit Engelmann, as Exhibit 46 from my document book 3 on page 25. It is my Document #52.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification, Exhibit 46.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: And the next document as Exhibit 47, Affidavit Budde, my Document #53 on page 27 in my document book #3. I shall also refer, in this connection, to Exhibit 32 which I have already announced. That is the Affidavit Hermann Ried.
THE PRESIDENT: Your Document 53 will be marked, for identification, Exhibit 47.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: The indictment of 4 January 1947 has held you co-responsible for happenings in prisons under Count 14. At the Reich Ministry of Justice were you ever concerned with questions of administration of punishment?
A: No.
Q: Do you recognize the charges of the prosecution concerning the administration of punishment in the Hamm district?
A: No, not one word of the assertion made by the prosecution applies to the District of Hamm. My institutions were taken over by the occupying power without any criticism. The chief of my office for the administration of punishment at Hamm, is still in office.
Q: I am now in a position to submit a very interesting document but, unfortunately, it has not been translated yet because it was received only a short time ago. It will be my Exhibit #48 and it is a letter of complaint from the Kreisleiter at Bielefeld-Halle of 7 July 1944, about the fact that inmates in institutions under Gunther Joel's supervision were too well treated. That will be Exhibit #48, a letter from the Kreisleitung at Bielefeld-Halle.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve #48 for that exhibit, when and if it is presented.
DR* HAENSEL: From my document book #3 I submit, for identification as Exhibit 49, my Document 55 on page 35. It is an affidavit by Dr. Karl Henning, Senior Prosecutor at Hamm.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: And an affidavit by the director of a penitentiary, Faber, as Exhibit 50 from my Document Book #5 on page 44. That is my Document #59.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: I am also in a position to submit a statement by the superintendent of the prison at Hamm, Moebuss, and want to submit it as Exhibit 51. It is from my Document Book #3 on page 41. It is my Document #61.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked Exhibit 51, for identification.
DR. HAENSEL: Page 50.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked.
DR. HAENSEL: And in order to complete the group of affidavits dealing with prisons I offer...
THE PRESIDENT: (Interrupting) Just a moment, please.
JUDGE BLaIR: I don't have this document and it makes double work on me not to have it. This Document Book 3. I don't have it.
THE PRESIDENT: We must have an extra copy of Document Book 3.
(Copy of Document Book was furnished)
Alright.
DR. HAENSEL: As the last exhibit in that group, Exhibit 52, I offer the Affidavit Mueller from my Document Book #3 on page 46 my Document 60.
THE PRESIDENT: That will be marked, for identification, Exhibit 52.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q: May I ask you, witness, to look at Exhibit 171 of the prosecution from Book III-E, and to comment on your situation report of the 6th of February, 1945?
A: The report has my full signature. It takes account of the situation as it was at that time. It was my duty to point out to the Ministry of Justice that chaotic conditions existed in the industrial area that the bombing attacks by day and by night had caused innumerable casualties and that those who survived were robbed of whatever possessions they have saved. Then I had to consider the requests made by all parts of the population to me to take the most serious steps against criminals who took advantage of that situation.
Q: That brings me to the end of my direct questions. One more.
I just want to refer briefly again to the matter concerning Thierack. You have made several statements concerning your relations with Thierack, but I should like you to supplement the following:
Did Thierack, on the 18th of October 1944, release you for service in the armed forces?
A: Yes, he did.
Q Before that time did you have a chance to speak to him about that?
A No, one day upon my initiative, an officer of another ministry made a renewed attempt to got my release from Thierack and to have me leace the Administration of Justice. The Ministry of Justice wired to the Ministry Command at Hamm, indicating that I was no longer indipensable for the Administration of Justice. I was not officially informed of this measure, except by the Armed Forces.
Q During the last few days I received an affidavit from Switzerland from Gisevius, who is a well known witness of the I.M.T. trial, also from the book, "To the bitter End." Gisevius is in Switzerland and therefore unfortunately cannot be produced as a witness by me here. I knew that his statements on the character of Joel are particular importance.
It belongs to a group of exhibits already submitted, the affidavit of Ried, Exhibit 33 and the affidavit of Diels, Exhibit 4. These statements are made by a passionate opponent of the Nazi system, therefore, I ask to have exhibit 53 reserved for the submission of the affidavit of Gisevius.
THE PRESIDENT: What is that name again?
DR. HAENSEL: Gisevius, G-i-s-e-v-i-u-s, Your Honor. This brings me to the end of my direct examination.
BY DR. SCHUBERT:
Q May it please the Tribunal, may I be permitted to put a few questions to the witness?
Dr. Joel, during the years of 1933 and 1939 you were frequently in Nuernberg and had an opportunity to contact with officials of the Administration of Justice in Nuernberg and of the Party. At that time did you make the observation that the defendant Oeschey among officers of the Party in Nuernberg, especially with the members of the Gauleiters, was a well known figure?
A When I, on orders of Minister of Justice Guertner, came to Nuernberg, I never heard the name of Oeschey. At that time it did not come to my attention that Oeschey worked here as an official in the Administration of Justice or as a judge. During the investigations of the Aryanization cases at Nuernberg, I never came upon the name of Oeschey anywhere.
Q These Aryanization cases occured already in 1938; isn't that correct?
A Yes, subsequent to the Jewish program of 9 and 16 November, 1938.
Q Dr. Joel, who was at that time the President of the District Court of Appeals in Nuernberg?
AAt that time Doebig was President of the district court of appeals.
Q In these Aryanization cases, did you have anything to do with Doebig?
A Unfortunately I had nothing to do with him. When I came to Nuernberg, upon orders by the Minister, I paid a call upon the President of the District Court of Appeals and the General Prosecutor. The President of the Court of Appeals was not present at that time. While I stayed in Nuernberg I never got in touch with him and he never contacted me either.
Q Could you comment on the question as to whether Doebig was made president of the District Court of Appeals, that is the highest official of the Administration of Justice in the District of Nuernberg with the approval of Gauleiter Streicher?
AAs far as I know for the appointment of a local chief officer of the Reich Administration of Justice the approval of the Gauleiter was required. Therefore, I have to assume that for the appointment of the President of the District Court of Appeal at Nuernberg, Gauleiter must have given his approval.
Q Thank you, this finishes my examination.
BY DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: (Counsel for the defendant Rothenberger.)
Q I ask too be permitted to put a few questions to the witness. Dr. Joel, at the Reich Ministry cf Justice you had the assignment to intervene against party officials in the various districts, who interfered with the Reich Ministry of Justice. Were you over at Hamburg to take care of Administration of Justice matters or to take care of party officials?
A Minister Guertner did not give me any assignment to go to Hamburg.
Q Was Hamburg the only Gau where there was no cause to interfere against party officials because they endangered the Administration of Justice?
A That is correct. Hamburg was one of the few Gaus where I did not have anything to do.
Q Could you tell us anything about the underlying causes responsible for the fact that one did not have to interfere there; do you know the conditions there, the attitude of the responsible people?
A The fact that Minister Guertner did not send me to Hamburg makes me reach the conclusion that in Hamburg no difficulties had arisen. That is to say that in Hamburg there was no interference on the part of the party officials with the Administration of Justice and that the Justice officials in leading positions in Hamburg themselves were able to take care of these difficulties.
Q Did you knew that in Hamburg the local leader of the NSRB that is the local loader of the legal office of the Gau, and the President of the District Court of Appeals were one and the same person, Dr. Rothenberger?
A I heard about the fact that the President of the District Court of Appeals Rothenberger was also chief of the Gau, legal Office.
Q And the leader of the National Socialist lawyer's League?
A I believe so, I am not sure about that.
Q Could you give us your opinion about what effects that had that one person held these two or maybe three offices in Hamburg?
A From my position in Berlin, I could only gain the impression that these consequences were very beneficial because neither my department chief or Minister Guertner ever made any statement to the effect that there were any difficulties in the field of penal law in Hamburg.
Q Dr. Joel, yesterday you mentioned that there was a radical change cf policy when Thierack assumed office in Berlin. In this connection, I would like to ask you whether Rothenberger, in your opinion, was one of the individuals whose arrival in the same sense as Thierack meant a radical change in policy?
A The officials at the Reich Ministry of Justice were aware that Thierack did not appoint Rothenberger for the position of under-secretary. Rothenberger, as president of the district court of appeals was known. It was known that Rothenberger had composed a memoradum and although we did not know the memorandum itself, at that time it was mentioned that it was a memorandum from which an attempt was to be made to cut off the interference in the field, of the administration of Justice.
THE PRESIDENT : We are quite familiar with that memorandum and know it by heart. Let us not go into that any more.
Q When Rothenberger assumed office, was he considered then an opponent of Thierack? By you and your colleagues in the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A That is hard to answer. We were of the opinion that the two didn't quite fit together. I did not know any details about the relations.
Q You didn't know anything about their personal relations, then.
A No.
Q And your opinion about the contacts between these two men are based only upon their differences in opinion as to various policies?
AAnd based upon observations during the first few months of their activity.
Q Thank you. In the spring of 1943, on the basis of an anonymous denunciation, were you assigned by Dr. Thierack as Reich Minister off Justice to conduct an investigation against Dr. Rothenberger because he had misappropriated two wardrobes?
A That is correct. Fart of my job was to handle matters of war economy of offenses committed against the rationing regulations. Therefore, a denunciation was submitted to me for which Dr. Rothenberger was charged that without the necessary ration coupons he had two wardrobes built. I was told that I had to investigate that personally. I did so, and I found out very soon that Dr. Rothenberger had submitted the required certificates of priority.
Q Therefore, there was no reason, after you had investigated the case, for that denunciation.
A No, there wasn't.
Q Did you gain the inambiguous impression that Thierack wanted to make use of these matters in order to get rid of Dr. Rothenberger as Under-Secretary, and in a manner which was very injurious to Rothenberger' s character?
A It appeared to me somewhat unusual that the Minister did not hand that denunciation to the Under-Secretary first to obtain an official statement from him.
By an official statement, probably, an investigation would have become unnecessary. As far as that is concerned, one may well say that this was a definite antagonistic step against Rothenberger.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Thank you. I have no further question.
THE PRESIDENT: Have we any further examination by Counsel for the Defense?
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. DOETZER:Dr. Doetzer, first deputizing for my colleague Dr. Koessl for the defendant Rothaug.
May it please the Tribunal, I ask to be permitted to put several questions to the witness Joel.
Q Witness, as far as you told us during the years 1939 and 1940, you have conducted numerous investigations here in Nurnberg, and in doing so, also conducted investigations concerning the participation of the Administration of Justice in Aryanization cases. Were these very detailed investigations?
A Yes, indeed, they were detailed investigations.
Q Did in the course of these investigations at any time the participation of the defendant Rothaug or his name merely occur to you?
A Neither the name Rothaug nor the name Oeschey ever appeared there.
Q Thank you. Then, as Defense Counsel for the defendant Nebelung I have to put several questions to you, witness. Witness, did you happen to know the defendant Nebelung before he was indicated in this trial?
A No.
Q Did you ever during the early years of your activity as Minister when Nebelung was President of the District Court of Appeals in Braunschweig hear of him?
A Yes, I heard of his work as president of the District Court of Appeals.
Q When was that -- during what years? The question is, could that have been the years 1935, 1936 end 1937?
A Yes.
Q What do you happen to know about the work of the defendant Nebelung as president of the District Court of Appeals at Braunschweig - what did come to your attention at the Ministry?
A I heard at that time that there was a difference of opinion between the President of the District Court of Appeals on one hand, and the SS Obergruppenfuehrer in the District of Braunschweig on the other hand; and that it was also a matter of attacks against the Administration of Justice. But that the Obergruppenfuehrer of the SS had the support of the then senior prosecutor at Braunschweig against the president of the district court of appeals.
Q Do you still remember, witness, whether the defendant Nebelung and his judges succumbed to the attacks of the SS in connection with the senior prosecutor?
A I remember that they put up a stiff fight.
Q Do you happen to remember whether the judges at that time refused the continue certain activities? It is a matter of a disciplinary penal chamber (Dienststrafkammer)
A Well -
Q May I help you, witness.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness will be of value to the Tribunal only if he is testifying to matters which he has personal knowledge.
A I have some knowledge about matters.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
A From reports made to me by people in the personnel department. I personally had nothing to do with them.
Q Witness, did the personnel department also report to you against the judges who fought that struggle. Did the Reich Fuehrer SS take steps by having them demoted and expelled?