A Because they had to be decided on the same legal foundation.
Q Was the joining of the two cases approved by the general prosecutor and the Ministry of Justice?
A That approval was given by the general public prosecutor as well as by the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q Did you attend the main trial against Katzenberger and Seiler personally?
A I attended the main trial only during tho main plea of the public prosecutor.
Q Did the president of the District Court of Appeals and the general public prosecutor attend the session?
AAccording to my knowledge both the general public prosecutor and the president of the District Court of Appeals attended, if not all the session, at least its essential phases.
Q Did the general public prosecutor have a possibility during the trial to instruct -- one moment -- to instruct the prosecutor at the session not to state his demand for punishment as intended?
A If on the basis of the presentation of evidence the general public prosecutor had been of the opinion that a different sentence would be appropriate, he could have as he did in other cases instructed the prosecutor at the session to specify a different manner of punishment.
THE PRESIDENT: May I ask who was the general public prosecutor who attended of whom you spoke?
A General Public Prosecutor Dr. Bems, B-e-m-s.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Did you tell Markl to receive any instructions from Rothaug for his final plea?
A When I was interrogated by a representative of t he prosecution, I found out about that for the first time. I did not even know that Markl got the basic points for the basis for the final plea from Rothaug.
I would never have approved a procedure of that kind.
Q The witness Engert in his affidavit, Exhibit 156, asserted that Freisler had told him that he did not consider the sentence adequate. Did Engert report to you about that when he returned from Berlin?
A Now, that you mention it, I remember that Engert was at the Reich Ministry of Justice and submitted the sentence. I consider it quite impossible that Engert should have told me about the objections by Freisler because it would be quite incomprehensible to say why Freisler should not have taken any steps if he considered the sentence a wrong one, why Engert after his return from Berlin should not immediately have told us to take steps for the re-opening of the case. Instead of that, we were instructed immediately to prepare a clemency appeal to the Ministry.
Q Did Engert as deputy of the general public prosecutor inform you that you should take steps for the re-opening of the case, for nullity plea, or for extraordinary objection?
A Instruction of that kind was never given either by the general public prosecutor or by his deputy Engert.
Q What was the attitude of the office of the general public prosecutor concerning the execution of the sentence?
AAs I heard, the general public prosecutor was in favor of the sentence being executed. In my opinion he should not have done that and under no circumstances, if Engert was of the opinion that the sentence was not adequate.
Q Were there any doubts expressed within the office concerning the adequacy of that sentence.?
A I was never informed of any doubts of that kind. I can state expressly that my referent as well as I were convinced that the sentence was adequate and I never had any doubt that that was also the conviction of the special court.
Q The witness Groben states in Exhibit 153, in his affidavit, that before the files were sent to Berlin in connection with the clemency appeal, it was intimated that he should remove his opinion from the files. Do you know anything about that procedure?
A When the statement made by the Witness Groben was put to me, that was the first time I heard about it, that it was suggested to him that he should remove a part of the files.
When I asked who that person was, I was told that it was I who made the suggestion to Groben. I have to object against that insinuation. A removal of a part of a file is to be considered a theft of a document; and it is quite impossible that at any time and in any case that I made such an insinuation to anybody to do anything of that kind because I would have delivered myself into the hands of that person. A procedure of that kind would never have been covered or approved by any superior office. Neither can I understand why I should have turned to Groben, of all people, whom I hardly knew at the time. It would have been much simpler to take the file out myself, because the files were in the office of the prosecution, and nobody could have proved that at any time I had had taken them out.
THE PRESIDENT: A question has arisen, which may possibly involve problems of translation. We are not sure, as we have heard the testimony it has referred numerous times to the question as to whether the sentence was adequate. By "adequate" we understand whether it was sufficient. Our recollection is that it was the death sentence which was imposed.
DR. KOESSL: No, Mr. President. It was never said whether the sentence was sufficient, but whether the sentence was contested; or, whether it was considered doubtful or incorrect.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes. Perhaps "excessive" would have been the more accurate word than "adequate". We thought the record should show that the word adequate was used, and that the death sentence was the punishment imposed.
DR. KOESSL: I did not refer to adequacy, but to the correctness of the sentences -- the legal possibility and admissibility.
BY DR. KOESSL:
Q Witness, was there any possibility to take parts of the files to your internal files?
AAs far as I see the matter, it was not quite easily possible to take any parts of the files and add them to the internal files.
We didn't do that, although I don't want to exclude that possibility.
Q The document which was mentioned in the case of Groben, was that of any importance in the further course of the trial?
A I do not know what it dealt with; and I don't know its contents.
Q That is sufficient, and you can't answer the question.
A No, I can't answer the question considering that I don't know the contents of the document.
Q What public prosecutor was in charge of the execution of the death sentence?
AAccording to my recollection, my certain recollection, public prosecutor Markl supervised the execution of the death sentence. I want to supplement this by saying that I did not give Markl any official instructions to carry out or to supervise the execution. I, myself, saw Katzzenberger only once during the main trial.
Q Now, another question. Was Rothaug a member of the Tannberg League, as the witness Ferber asserted -- English transcript 1609?
A Rothaug was never a member of the Tannberg League. As I believe I can confirm that with almost absolute certainty. If there are witnesses who are certain he was a member of the Tannberg Bund, or Tannberg League, then that statement is unture.
Q Mention was made in this trial of that fact that you had been a Lundendorff adherent, as well as Rothaug -- a Lundendorff follower. What was his position toward the National Socialist Party?
A Lundendorff was absolutely against the National Socialist Party, and in his periodical, Volkswarte, he fought against the NSDAP.
Q That is sufficient. Then, Rothaug frankly stated that he was a follower of Lundendorff?
A Until the catastrophe he never left any doubt about that.
DR. KOESSL: Thank you. I have no further questions to that witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other Defense Counsel -- with the exception of Dr. Schubert -- desire to examine this witness as his own? If so, this is the time to do it. It appears there is none.
You may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Before going any further, Mr. Schroeder, I refer to your statement -- that if other judges on the Nurnberg Special Court were not good Nazis, then they were good actors, playing the parts very well. In your professional opinion, is the degree of the Nazi political activity of those men relevant to their testimony here as to the truth about facts?
AAs far as that is concerned, I expressed my opinion. I did not state any facts; I only stated, and can only repeat, that nobody doubted the political reliability of the associate judges in the least, because Otherwise they could not have been used in the special court.
Q Assuming that, Mr. Schroeder, please answer my question which was only -- do you think, assuming their Nazi acceptability, that that fact is relevant to any testimony or evidence from them in this trial, with regard to the truth about facts. Yes or no -that is simple.
A That I have to leave to the decision of the Court whether my statements were credible or not. I cannot decide that.
Q Then, I assume from your answer that whether or not the other judges on the Nurnberg Special Court were active Nazis or not, was not mentioned by you to either destroy or impair their credibility as witnesses; is that correct?
A I didn't make any statement about the other judges at Nurnberg courts, and I didn't quite understand the question. I ask that these questions be put a little slower so that I can put them down and answer them. It wasn't quite possible for me to do that.
Q Once more, Mr. Schroeder. Do you think that whether or not a man wag an active Nazi has anything to do with the truth or falsity of what he says in this courtroom?
DR. KOESSL: I object to the question, Your Honors. I didn't ask for the opinion of the witness. That was not asked in my direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: There has been an objection made and the objection is sustained.
Q Mr. Schroeder, as an example of Rothaug's repudiation of Naziism before 1933, you described an occasion in Hof in 1937, when Hitler was addressing a local Nazi Party meeting. You said that Rothaug dissuaded a woman from attending that meeting because, as Rothaug declared, the Nazis were even then striving for a dictatorship that boded the greatest danger to the country. Did you, then, share Rothaug's opinion?
A I personally was of the opinion that If National Socialism would come to power the danger was apparent that we would be drawn into wart that was also my opinion, and that of Rothaug's. I am a rather propagandist for unrestricted individualism, and did not like the collectivism tendencies' which no doubt existed in the National Socialist movement and were carried out by it. At any rate, I did not have the least connection at that time with the NSDAP.
Q If that is true -
THE PRESIDENT: We must recess at this time for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken.)
THL MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
BY MR. WOOLEYHAN:
Q Mr. Schroeder, if what you just said before the recess is true, how do you explain the contrary facts of your membership in the Nazi Party from early 1923 until after it was outlawed by the Hitlerputsch and you then served the Nazi Party in many respects until 1937, when you rejoined and acquired a post of political leadership in the Nazi Lawyer's League?
A I can explain that very simply, because the real situation was as follows: Membership in the Party was dated from the time when the Party was again permitted to function, that is, in 1925, as far as I remember; the memberships were dated from that time. In 1937, perhaps, I made application for membership in the NSDAP and became a member retroactively, to take effect on the 1st of May 1937 as a member.
As far as my former membership in the NSDAP is concerned, that was the time around 1923. At that time in the questionnaire, I stated that I was member at that time even though, on the basis of the knowledge which I have now due to my being incarcerated for severals years since then, I have found out that membership did not exist in my case because I merely made the application , as far as I know, in the spring of 1923 to become a member of the NSDAP. Shortly before that together with a colleague of mine, I had been beaten up during the night, without any cause, by the rural police in Ludwigsstrasse at Munich.
I had not given any cause for that. With that I had considered the situation as being finished.
If I had really been a member I would have had to receive a Party membership book, but that was not the case and I did not pay any fees either. On the basis of the opinion of the American courts and the Denazification Boards, which I know, I am of the opinion that I was not a Party member at all.
Moreover, this concerns the time of 1923, and I would like to reserve the privilege for myself that I have just as much right to change my opinions as anybody else. Even if I had been a National Socialist in 1923, it was not absolutely necessary that I should be one too in 1937 and the following years.
That is what I have to say concerning my membership before 1933.
Q Mr. Schroeder, let us examine if, as you say, you did change your opinion after 1923 and were in agreement with Rothaug on Party issues. Is that your official personnel file that I hand you?
(document submitted to the witness)
A Yes, yes.
Q Please turn to Page 21-a. On page 21-a, do you find a recommendation from the Deputy of the Fuehrer in the Party Chancellery in Munich, dated 12 March 1941, which states that you, as the recommended successor of Denzler as Chief Public Prosecutor here in Nuernberg, belonged to the Party as a member until it was dissolved in 1923, that you recently, in 1937, "rejoined the Party and in the meantime, though not a member, served the Party in many respects"?
Just when it was during that period, Mr. Schroeder, that you changed your mind; and if you did, why didn't the Party Chancellery find out about it?
A I don't know anything about this document; I did not give any cause for it, and I also did not give the information that is in it. I don't know the name of the author of it; at least, I can't read it. I don't know how he comes to state that in this form. I merely stated expressly, and I say it again, that in 1923, in the spring, I said that I wanted to join the Party and that I wanted to become a member because of an incident. I, as well as my comrade, felt that I was injured and this was my only means of protest. That was all there was to my membership, in my opinion. If this offices is of another opinion, I cannot assume the responsibility for that conception.
What I testified to under oath I can only emphasize again and again and repeat, because it is true.
Q But Mr. Schroeder from that document, which you held in your hand, is there any doubt in your mind that that is your official personnel file?
A Yes, I assume--yes, I assume-- Well, I don't know; I mean I don't know in what form the personnel files were made at the Ministry. I assume that is the personnel file which you submitted to me.
Q Now, with regard to your statement, Air. Schroeder, that you deem it absolutely impossible that Rothaug or even yourself could have treated a case other than according to the general rules of law, I now hand you a document.
(Document submitted to the witness.)
Is that document which I handed you the file of the Eisenberger case before the Nuernberg Special Court?
A Yes, that is the Eisenberger file.
Q Is it a fair statement of the facts of that case before you that Eisenberger was sentenced by Rothaug to four year's penitentiary on 10 April 1941 for malicious remarks against State and Party?
AAccording to the judgment, he was condemned to the penitentiary as a dangerous habitual criminal in connection with a crime against the Malicious Acts Law. He was condemned to four years in the penitentiary. That was one of the 10th of April, 1941.
Q Yes. Now, on page 60 of that case file, does it appear that on July 2, 1941 the Reich Ministry of Justice instructed the Chief Public Prosecutor in Nuernberg that Eisenberger should be handed over to the Gestapo?
A This is the inter-office-file. I have to look at the working file. That must show it.
Q Page 60 show that fact, I believe.
A Yes, yes. Yes, yes. This confirms a telephone conversation.
Q Yes. Now, that Ministry of Justice order was directed to your office, was it not?
A I assume it was addressed to the Senior Public Prosecutor in Nuernberg.
Q And who was that?
A That was myself.
Q Yes, that is right.
A That, of course, does not yet say that at that time, at that very moment -- because I don't know what conversation was concerned, and I can't remember this whole incident at all, not in the least.
Q Does it appear -
A Whether it was the one to whom the telephone call was addressed, or whether I wasn't, I can't tell you that; it is impossible. I stated in detail the reasons that I have no knowledge of it. It was put to me, from my personnel file, that I went on leave on the 16th or the 17th of July, 1941, This perhaps; must be connected with the fact that in the rush I heard it and forwarded it, I don't know. However, I don't know what conversation this is all about. Moreover, I would like to emphasize precisely--and this must be evident from my personnel file--that on 2 July 1941 I did not receive the instructions that were given by telephone, because on that day I went to the funeral of my sister, one day after I assumed my office-and this must also be apparent from my personnel file--I had a day of leave.
On the 2nd of July I was not in Nuernberg at all. My sister was buried on the 3rd of July, or perhaps it even happened on the 2nd I don't know.
Q On page 57 of that case file does it appear that on the 3rd of July, the next day, Eisenberger was handed over, in fact by the prosecution, to the Gestapo?
The director of the camp reports this on 9 July 1941 to the Chief Public Prosecutor in Nuernberg, namely you. Does that appear on page 59?
A That is right; that is a fact. This document is in front of me.
Q Now further on page 61, does it appear that on the 16th of July 1941 you yourself made a file note which states as follows? And I quote:
"According to a press notice which appeared today in the newspaper Voelkischer Beobachter, and which was issued by the Reichsfuehrer SS and Chief of the German Police, the habitual criminal Eisenberger was shot because of resistance."
Is that correct?
A Yes, yes.
Q.- Now, Mr. Schroeder, I hand you another document.
(Document submitted to witness)
Is that document I had you the case file before the Nurnberg Special Court of one Klein?
A.- Yes.
Q.- On page 3 of that case file, does it appear that on the 23rd of September 1944 you personally reported to the attorney general of Nurnberg at the Court of Appeals the following?
"I intend to file an indictment identical with the draft enclosed if the prosecution is ordered. In view of the personality of the defendant I consider the order for prosecution called for. If the period during which the defendant was in Dachau Concentration Camp is added, the time limits" -
A.- Yes, yes.
Q.- -- "the time limits of Article 20-A of the Reich Penal Code are applicable."
Does it appear, Mr. Schroeder, that this Klein case arose about two months after the Einsenberger case?
A.- I cannot state any details about the origin of this report because as is clear from the working file, this report, in the form in which it has been submitted to me, was produced by Public Prosecutor Markl and, without any changes made by me, was sent to the General Public Prosecutor and the Ministry.
Q.- On page 4 of that same report do you find your signature "Schroeder"?
A.- Page 4? On page 4? You must be in error.
Q.- Or on the reverse of page 3.
A.- If I may ask you, which document are you talking about? The report?
Q.- Page 3.
A. Page 3?
Q.- You see your signature there, don't you?
A.- That is my signature, and about ten centimeters to the right of the signature, below the signature, is the initial of the prosecutor who wrote the report, and the Referent, Markl. The "M" here.
Q.- Now, above your signature on that report, does the following appear? And I quote:
"I therefore intend to refer to Article 20-A of the Reich Penal Code and other articles of the Penal Code, and to request the death penalty. This request appears justified in view of the similar case Eisenberger, who was sentenced by the Nurnberg Special Court on the 10th of April, 1941, for an offense against the Malicious Acts Law, to five years' loss of civic rights, and who was shot while resisting."
Does that appear there?
A.- On account of Eisenberger, is that what you mean? Is that supposed to be Klein who was shot, or Eisenberger?
Q.- I am just asking you if I read correctly from the paragraph above your signature.
A.- Yes.
Q.- Now -
A.- Yes, yes, here above my signature.
Q.- Yes. Now I ask you, Mr. Schroeder: In the Eisenberger case your office turned over a may to the Gestapo who was duly sentenced to four years by the Special Court. Within two weeks that man was shot to death by the Gestapo. Now two months later, in the Klein case, you proposed the death penalty mainly for the reason that in the Eisenberger case the man was shot by the Gestapo anyway, so there doesn't seem to be much point in asking for any other penalty.
Do you regard that as being a procedure in the normal course of general law?
A.- First I would like to emphasize that I did not have the least to do with the transfer to the Gestapo. The transfer to the Gestapo was undertaken by the Reich Ministry of Justice. At that time I did not even have an opportunity to make any objections against the transfer about which, moreover, I apparently only found out about later. I could not object to such a transfer.
As far as the Klein case is concerned, it is, however, true, according to the file, that the Eisenberger case was mentioned. I wish to state the following in regard to that. It gave cause for a great deal of uprear and rage in our office that Eisenberger, who had been sentenced to a prison term, was suddenly taken out of the penal institution and was shot. There was hardly anyone, I believe there was no one in Nurnberg, who was not enraged about this manner of handling the case.
As Public Prosecutor Markl stated in this report on page 3, this paragraph that was read to me, how he brought this Eisenberger case into it, this could only have meant that under all circumstances it must be prevented that a man again, or under the same conditions, would be taken out of a penal institution and sentenced to death. The Ministry obviously was supposed to be given the opportunity by way of corresponding clemency acts. Neither the Court nor the Prosecution approved of such an occurrence. That this should be prevented was probably the consideration which caused Markl to show this report to me.
At this moment I cannot give better information about the reasons off hand.
Q.- So, Mr. Schroeder,-
A.- I know this case.
Q.- So, Mr. Schroeder, since you say the practice of the Ministry ordering your office to turn over men to the Gestapo who had been sentenced to minor terms, and who were later shot, could not be stopped, you then, in the Klein case, sign a recommendation, which I have just read, in which you state that the death penalty, in a very similar case, is proposed, as stated here, because in the other case the man was shot while resisting anyway.
Does that, in your opinion, justify asking for the death penalty for a man who, in a similar case two months before, got four years? Is that the way the law worked here in Nurnberg in general?
A.- We applied the law correctly. If I did that, I did it so that the greater evil which I saw would be prevented, and the greater evil consisted in having the police, against the will of the Ministry of Justice, by a forced release of the man, proceeding against these people, and that one could represent the point of view toward the Gestapo that the man, as such, was sentenced to death and then it was possible for the Court or the Ministry to intervene.
I must ask you to excuse me for just a moment to see what the Ministry answered.
Q.- Mr. Schroeder, would you please answer my question as I put them to you, please?
In view of the intimate relations which you have described between yourself and the defendant Rothaug, which, as you describe it, was the most intimate relation he had aside from his wife, can you explain why it was that Rothaug here testified that he never heard about people being transferred to the Gestapo after they had been sentenced by the Nurnberg Special Court? How was that?
A.- Well, I personally merely remember the case -- to begin with, in my recollection, it must have been an occurrence which happend before my time in office. In the meantime, it was merely found out that the sentence was passed in April, that is, before my time, even if Rothaug says he didn't know that.
Q.- Mr. Schroeder, you were in office here as Chief Public Prosecutor when the order to turn Eisenberger over to the Gestapo came down, weren't you?
A.- Would you please repeat that?
Q.- I said, you have already admitted here that you were in office as Chief Public Prosecutor.
A.- I was in office, only I don't know if it is correct about that particular date.
Q.- That is all on that, I think, Mr. Schroeder.
A.- Well, I don't knew anymore, at the moment, where it is, this execution.
Q.- That is all, Mr. Schroeder.
A.- I can only repeat again -
Q.- That is all, Mr. Schroeder. I haven't asked you any question.
Tell me: You have testified here today displaying considerable intimate knowledge of how Rothaug got along with his associate judges with regard to the differences of opinion they had on cases, how they voted, particularly with regard to the witness Ferber. I am wondering how you knew all that in your capacity as a Prosecutor when Rothaug testified here that there were no intimate or professional working relations between the Bench and the Prosecution. Where did you hear or learn all these intimate details that are normally a judicial confidence?
A.- I have to answer the question in the same way as another question which I have already answered, that I had certain relations with Rothaug that I knew a great deal from Rothaug; also, in individual cases, the Referents told me a great many incidents, and I received a great deal of information from the associate judges. Today I am no longer in a position to state my opinion as to what incidents were concerned. If I had known that I would be asked about it today, or later on, I would have written it down at that the. I don't know in detail on the basis of what information every individual information was given to me. I can merely state that still today, as at that time, I was under the impression that those were the conditions, without being in a position to cite definite inci dents which occurred in Weiden and which I just happened to remember during the last few days and which I discussed today.
It would be too much to ask of me, as to all those things -- which are all mixed up -- that I should untangle them all today. I don't know.
Q.- Mr. Schroeder, I hand you a book.
(Book submitted to the witness.)
You have stated that the defendant Rothaug proceeded against all defendants with a great deal of severity, without any discrimination. To test whether -
A.- Yes.
Q.- One moment please. To test whether you are qualified to make any conclusions here with regard to severity in the field of justice administration, I ask you to turn to page 12 of that book.
A.- Yes.
Q.- Is the title of that book "Candidates for Death", by Dr. Karl Alt, published in 1946 in Munich?
A.- The experiences of a chaplain in the prison at Stadelheim; yes, it has the title "Candidates for Death."
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
Q And is it written by the Roman Catholic Chaplain at Stodelheim Prison, Munich, who was there throughout the war years?
AAs far as I know, Dr. Alt was a Protestant Chaplain, but that probably isn't important, is it?
Q No.
A I repeatedly saw him in Munich and spoke with him.
Q Now, this Chaplain at the Munich prison that you repeatedly saw and spoke with, on Page 12, do you find the following quotation that he writes: "The infamous president of the People's Court, Freisler, prohibited smoking even to the candidates for death and even the smallest last-hour privileges or extra rations such as had been customary before. His faithful disciple, the Nurnberg Chief Public Prosecutor Schroeder, one day ordered removal of the Crucifix from the execution chamber as an 'obsolete symbol.' He prohibited the death candidates from saying a prayer together with the priest immediately before their executions for the reason that they 'had nothing more to say.'" Is that correctly read, Mr. Schroeder?
A Yes, you read it correctly, but the matter is incorrect and it is not correct as far as my own person is concerned. I stated expressly that I undertook these executions exactly in accordance with the provisions that were given to us together with the sentences and that I carried out these executions as I was ordered to do and that I did not do anything that was against these provisions. But, on the other hand to be sure I, however, did see to it that these provisions were complied with.
That I had a crucifix taken out, I don't know at all and I don't believe it either and I ask you to have this Dr. Alt come here into this courtroom because, as far as I see already now, there are a lot of things in this book that are only conclusions which they are represented as facts. How am I supposed to have been a faithful student of Freisler whom I didn't even know? I mean just as an external fact and that is a lie of this author because he was informed about the legal regulations Court No. III, Case No. 3.and if he considers this prohibition as one that I had caused; the prisoners in the same manner as the Ministry ordered it, they were treated and I had no reason to deviate from these provisions and regulations because I would not have considered myself justified, to do so.
Q Mr. Schroeder, when you met the author of that book, as you say repeatedly, in Nurnberg Prison -
A I believe I did -- I believe. I mean, I believe I did.
Q Yes. Well, when you believe that you met him did you also believe then that he was a liar, this Chaplain?
A Perhaps the Chaplain in 1946, looking back, had a different view of these occurrences. I don't know. I can only state with all certainty - and this cannot be refuted and please confront me with him that the prisoners were treated quite in accordance with the regulations of the Ministry. I did not consider myself authorized to deviate from the regulations as to their treatment because then I would have endangered myself that this would have been considered sabotage by some prison official.
Q Tell me, Mr. Schroeder, in connection with Rothaug's lack of discrimination among defendants, sentencing them to whatever they deserved, whether they were Party or not, you mentioned the Ramsteck Case. I believe you mentioned the fact that Ortsgruppenleiter Ramsteck was sentenced by Rothaug for some offense or other to a long prison sentence regardless of the fact that he was an important political leader. Now, I ask you, Mr. Schroeder, how long was that long prison sentence?
A Please submit the files to me. Perhaps you have them here.
Q One moment -
A I don't know. As far as I know -
Q You testified -- just a moment, please.
A -- nine months -- I said nine months before but I believe in the meantime I thought about it; I had no documents to examine, whether it was one month and two months or one month and three months I cannot Court No. III, Case No, 3.state under oath and if it is important please show me the file.