Q. Mr. Franke, on the same page you say that in penal cases and I quote: "In penal cases where the Party Chancellery intervened, Klemm's relations with the Party Chancellery were exploited."
A. Yes.
Q. It is the word "exploited" which rather strikes me. What did you mean to say by that?
A. I should like to say first that that sentence doesn't refer only to undermining cases, but it is true in a general way and it refers also, above all, to offenses against the war economy, where the views of the higher leadership had to be obtained. That was done by informing the higher leadership about the facts of a case, which had been established by the prosecution, with the object of causing the Administration of Justice to go into action. Therefore, I believe that what one ought to say here is "exploited in the interests of the administration of Justice."
Q. Did you ever hear anybody say that Klemm exploited his personal relationship with tho Party Chancellery from that point of view? In particular, did you ever hear that he wrote letters to Klopfer and that he started them with "Dear Gert"?
A. Yes, I can remember that.
Q. Dr. Franke, in your affidavit you then talk about the relations between Thierack and Freisler; you say that relations between Freisler and Thierack were very bad, and that it was Klemm who had to deal with any discussions which had to be held with Freisler. Could you tell the Tribunal what observations you made to the effect that Klemm actually spoke to Freisler?
A. As a witness, to help you to understand this matter, I must point out that, concerning the methods by which Freisler conducted his trials before the People's Court and the way in which he expressed his opinion, Minister Thierack did not agree with Freisle in that direction. On the contrary, he was peeved, and I believe I can remember that discussions were held in that connection every now and then.
I can remember one discussion for certain, but that dealt with a different subject. That discussion took place in Undersecretary Klemm's office on the morning of a day shortly before the air raid began in which Freisler was killed.
Q. Do you remember what you discussed that morning?
A. As far as I recollect, we discussed the future methods by which the Senates of the People's Courts would conduct their trials, in connection with the fact that airraids had become more sever and in connection with the air raids on Postdam as such. What I think we may have discussed was evacuation, but I can't tell you for certain.
Q. Well, in other words, it was just a technical, administrative discussion?
A. Yes, above all it was that.
Q. Did you have any other opportunity to observe whether Klemm had any discussions with Freisler?
PR. LA FOLLETTE: Excuse me.
THE WITNESS: I cannot remember any other such occasions.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: All right.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Dr. Franke, at the end of your affidavit you say that on the 2nd of May, 1945. Thierack handed you a piece of paper, an identification paper to save you from arrest. You say that you were handed that identification card in the presence of Undersecretary Klemm, with instructions from Thierack to remain behind in Eutin, in hiding.
A. May I correct this matter? Minister Thierack did not give me a piece of paper, but he issued orders to me, and that is all I said. Those orders were issued to me when we were standing by a car on which I had already loaded my luggage.
I have to assume that Klemm was able to watch us. The identification card was not handed to me by the Minister, but it was some other German agency that gave it to me.
Q. Do you know whether Klemm know anything about that?
A. Of that latter incident?
Q. Yes, I am referring to that.
THE PRESIDENT: Does it make any difference in this case, from the standpoint of Klemm, whether he know about that or not?
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honor -
THE PRESIDENT: You think it does?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, I think it does.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, go ahead.
THE WITNESS: That identification card was handed to me when both the other men had already left.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. In other words, Klemm wasn't even able to see or to watch that affair?
A. No.
Q. Now a last question, Dr. Franke. According to your affidavit, and according to the testimony you have given today, you obviously worked at the Ministry during the whole of 1944.
A. Yes.
Q. And you took part in the reports in connection with death sentences?
A. Not always.
Q. Are you able to tell us about how many cases were dealt with in 1944, and where the clemency question was decided to the effect that executions were ordered to take place? A witness has testified here that in 1944 eight thousand executions were ordered.
A. I think that is quite out of the question; the figure was much lower. I can't give the exact figure, but my estimate is that approximately two thousand cases or a few more were executed. However, I have no definite evidence. All I can say is that you have already told me that you have the report lists here, and those report lists must give some indication.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, we have the report lists. You need not comment on them.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Court, I have no further questions to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other cross-examination?
(No response)
Re-direct examination.
RE-DIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. You may not have discussed it with Mr. Beauvais, but the first time that I have heard this morning about the occasions on which Undersecretary Klemm left Eutin--would you say that was very often?
A. No, I am not of that opinion. He was absent only for reasons connected with his official duties. As a rule, the Undersecretary did attend the discussions on reports.
Q. Yes. Now, on page 4 of your original affidavit--do you have it there? you answered some questions with reference to sentences, in the first full paragraph from the top of the page, May I ask you, do you find this in that paragraph? I will start the sentence:
"Both men were sever in their judgments of these cases because it was to avoid, by all means, that the critical military situation might shake the internal front and thus cause a stab in the back of the fighting forces.
The tendency expressed during the decisions was that the "bloody sacrifices at the front and at heme should not he made senseless through a soft clemency policy.
THE PRESIDENT: Is this from the affidavit, Pr. La Follette?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is from the affidavit, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: He hasn't contradicted it.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I thought he had. I simply wanted to ask if, notwithstanding his testimony, he still -- I am sorry, I interpreted it that the witness contradicted that.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
BY MR. LAFOLLETTE:
Q. Did you find that?
A. Yes, I have that passage here.
THE PRESIDENT : Naturally, yes, of course I do. Of course I do.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Thank you.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Now, with reference to this occasion, on the 2nd of May, 1945, after the cabinet meeting in Pleen-
A. (interposing) P-l-o-e-n, Ploen.
Q. It is still true, is it not, that you received orders from Minister Thierack, in the presence of State Secretary Klemm, to remain in Eutin and to camouflage yourself?
A. That is true.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is all.
Court No. III, Case No. III.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Franke, you spoke of the occasion of the late air raid at the time of Freisler's death. Do you have personal knowledge as to what the direct cause of the death was?
THE WITNESS: As far as I heard, Freisler went from the Ministry across the Wilhelmstrasse and the Vosstrasse and the Goeringstrasse and the Bellevuestrasse. He Hurried through those streets and he stopped for a short while in another public building. In that building, so I heard, he was advised not to walk on because in the meantime the air raid had started. But Freisler was anxious to get to his office while the air raid was in progress, and therefore he went on. He reached the building of the People's Court but he only got as far as the gateway. He did not get to the big building.
At that very moment, a bomb dropped, and in the cellar of that other building, that bomb pressed him against the wall. I was told that he was laid out on a stretcher where he stayed for a short time quite close to the gateway. When the raid was over, or possibly while the raid was still in progress--however, I think it was after the raid--a doctor identified him. That was a physician who had been on his way to Freisler to talk with him. It was about an hour after the raid was over when we were told at the Ministry that Freisler had been the victim of an air raid.
THE PRESIDENT: Your understanding is that the sole cause of his death was from the bombings Is that right?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: That is all I wanted to know. No further questions. The witness is excused.
(The Witness is excused)
MR. LA FOLLETTE; If your Honors please, with reference to Exhibit 595, the Prosecution is advised that distribution was made in both English and German and that the exhibit is in the possession of the Secretary--General.
Therefore we assume that it was admitted into evidence and asked that it be so noted.
THE PRESIDENT: Does your record show that 595 was admitted in evidence?
THE SECRETARY GENERAL: Yes, it was.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received now if it wasn't received before.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: And with reference to 596, NG-2220, the English was distributed.
THE PRESIDENT: 596 is 2410, isn't it?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Our record is that it is 2220.
THE PRESIDENT: That is 597.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 597 is right, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: 597 was received. I'm asking about 596, 2410.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I am sorry, your Honor, but it was received. But may I show that we now distribute German copies of it. It was received without the German being distributed. That is 597.
THE PRESIDENT: 596 has not been received by the Secretary-General.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor. The processing was not complete on that. We will check on that now. I would like to have it still identified as such: 596 is 2410.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, it's received subject to processing and delivery.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Are there witnesses for the defense for examination at this time? The list shows two witnesses for this morning called by Dr. Klemm: Mitzschke and Hazemann.
DR. SCHILF: May it please the court, I intend to call Mitzschke and Hazemann after the lunch recess at half past one. I have made certain now that my colleagues have documents to introduce and there will be no interruption.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I am now ready to introduce my documents. I offer from Petersen Document Book I, document No. 1, the Exhibit No. of which is 4.
THE PRESIDENT: Will you save me the trouble of looking up my notes? How many exhibits have you already offered for Petersen? Three?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And this is No. 4?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, it is. Document No. 1 from Petersen Document Book I. Petersen Document 2, Exhibit No. 5. Document No. 3, Exhibit No. 6. Document No. 4, Exhibit No. 7. Document No. 5, Exhibit No. 8, Document No. 6, Exhibit No. 9. I should like to refer you to the passage: "There is a unanimous opinion that today there is no opportunity for the judges to examine the laws--." Petersen Document No. 7, I offer as Exhibit No. 10.
THE PRESIDENT: They are all received, 4 to 10 inclusive.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 8, Exhibit 11
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 9, Exhibit 12
THE PRESIDENT: Recieved.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen No. 10, Exhibit 13.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen No. 11, as Exhibit 14.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen No. 12, the People's Court against High Treason and Treason, as Exhibit No. 15.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 13, Criticism on Decisions of the People's Court, as Exhibit No. 16.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 14 as Exhibit No. 17. It deals with the problem of eliminating political factors from the administration of justice.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. 14 is received as Exhibit 17; it's received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 15 as Exhibit 18, Wartime Laws.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received.
DR, ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 16 as Exhibit No. 19.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 17 as Exhibit 20.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The subject is wartime law in emergency. Petersen No. 18 as Exhibit 21.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen No. 19, about the position of the associate judges of the People's Court, as the lay members of the People's Court, as Exhibit No. 22.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 20, lay judges and the administration of criminal justice, as Exhibit 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No, 21 as Exhibit 24.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 22 as Exhibit 25.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 23 as Exhibit No. 26.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER; Petersen Document No. 24 as Exhibit 27.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 25 as Exhibit 28.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 26 as Exhibit 29.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 27 as Exhibit No. 30.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR, ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 28, Chalupa case, as Exhibit No. 31.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 29 as Exhibit No. 32.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, before the court accepts it, so far as I can ascertain, there is no preamble whatsoever to this affidavit as required by the rules. I ask that it be rejected. I object to it.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Just a moment, please. The original document does contain a preamble and the certification. A mistake had occurred and this mistake has been corrected in the original.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I still object, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: That is Document 29? You say it is an affidavit for the purpose of correcting a previous affidavit? I don't understand. If Counsel Aschenauer took the affidavit, I presume he can fill in a certificate if it was taken before.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is not a sufficient preamble, your Honor. That is what we are objecting to.
THE PRESIDENT: In its present from it is not admissible under the rule.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall introduce this affidavit later on, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT; We will reserve the Exhibit No. 32 for it.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 30; I am offering as Exhibit No. 33.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 31 I offer as Exhibit No. 34.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I withdraw 32. I moan Peterson Document No. 32 is the one I am withdrawing. That brings me to Petersen Document No. 33 which I offer as Exhibit No. 36.
THE PRESIDENT: It would be 35; would it not?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, yes; it's 35.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 34 becomes Exhibit 36.
THE PRESIDENT: It's received. We anticipate the receipt of the next exhibit which we trust has no relation to the fairy tales by the same author.
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, no. This one deals with an explanation of the term "extermination". (Ausmerzen). No. 35.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document 36 as Exhibit 38.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I do not intend to introduce Document No. 37.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. You offered Document 36 as Exhibit 38; did you not?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes; your Honor.
TIE PRESIDENT: And you're not offering 37?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document 37 I am not offering. Petersen Document No. 38 I offer as Exhibit 40.
THE PRESIDENT: 39.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I object to 39. I object to 39 for the reason it does not consist of any evidence that is relevant or pertinent to any issue in this case. It refers to a visit of Lord Londonderry to Germaty.
It has to do with the internal condition of Germany as Lord Londonderry viewed it. I cannot see that it's pertinent to this case. I may take this occasion to say that I shall come to the microphone and make similar objections to the next seven or eight documents.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I should like to give my reasons. It deals width the legality of the German state from the point of view of the lay judge, and he laid doom a subjective view of the document. The lay judge could not know that there had been continuous sessions, continuous legal negotiations, international congresses, etc., concerning law, international university congresses; and from all that, he could not realize that any illegal activities were going on at that period, that the legality of the State could be doubted.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, the Prosecution has not charged that the illegality of the State per se was involved. It is the acts under which the Defendant Petersen judged and the procedure by which he judged which are the issue. The fact that Lord Lendonderry appeared and said "One must recognize that Hitler is doing his utmost to regain for a great country with a population of sixty-five millions a place in the world" -- we can see has no relevance will the issue in this case even under the theory of Behl.
DR. ASCHENAUER: May I point out that the interrogation of Behl has shown the contrary.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal cannot pass upon the probative value of documents which it has net examined. If you will state the exhibits to which you make objection on the ground that they have no probative value the Tribunal will examine them and pass upon their admissability.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, if they have no probative value we will disregard them. In any event, whether they are received in evidence or not it's a purely technical matter. We cannot pass upon them on the basis of Counsel's statement as to what is not in them.
Court III Case III You object to 39?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 38, 39, and 40.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean document?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I never introduced 37.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 40, 41.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 42, 43, 44,45, 47, 48, 49 and 53.
THE PRESIDENT: 48, 49, and 53?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Counsel will realize that this objection is of a different nature than the others. It geos to the more question of probative value. We can't pass upon that question until we examine the document.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: That is quite right, your Honor, but I can't stand here and lot it go by without making any objection.
THE PRESIDENT: We will observe our ruling upon your documents. I think you'd better give them exhibit numbers, if you will. Document 38 was Exhibit 39?
DR. ASCHENAUER: No, I think it was 40.
THE PRESIDENT: I think not.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, 38 is Exhibit 39. Document 39 is Exhibit No. 40. Document No. 4O is Exhibit 41. Document No. 41 is Exhibit No. 42. Peterson Document No. 42 is Exhibit No. 43. Peterson Document No. 43 is Exhibit 44. Petersen Document 44 is Exhibit 45. Peterson Document 45 is Exhibit 46. Peterson Document 46 is Exhibit 47.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No objection, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 47 is received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document 47 is Exhibit 48.
THE PRESIDENT: It's Exhibit 45, isn't it?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Document 47 is Exhibit 48, your Honor. Document 47 which is Exhibit 48 is received.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 47, Exhibit 48 is right.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document 48 is Exhibit 49. Petersen Document 49 is Exhibit 50. Petersen Document 50 is Exhibit 51.
THE PRESIDENT: That exhibit is received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document 51 is Exhibit 52.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
It will be necessary for us to take our recess at this time.
(A recess was taken.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
THE PRESIDENT: I think we received your Document 51 as Exhibit 52.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, your Honor. Document Petersen No. 52 I offer as Exhibit 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 53 I offer as Exhibit 54.
THE PRESIDENT: An objection has been made to that and the ruling is reserved.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 54 I offer as Exhibit No. 55.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I should like to point out that Exhibit No. 54 and 55 belong together, according to their context. Then Peterson Document No. 54 is offered as Exhibit No. 56.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 56 is offered as Exhibit No. 57.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 57 is offered as Exhibit No. 58.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen 58 is offered as Exhibit 59.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 59 is offered as Exhibit No. 60.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 60 is offered as Exhibit No. 61.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 61 is offered as Exhibit No. 62.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen 62 is offered as Exhibit No. 63.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 63 is offered as Exhibit No. 64.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Now I come to Document Book No. II. Peterson Document 64 is offered as Exhibit 65.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 65 I offer as Exhibit No. 66.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 66 is offered as Exhibit No. 67.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 67 is offered as Exhibit No. 68.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Petersen Document No. 69 is offered as Exhibit No. 70.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. The Exhibits are received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: The next few documents I submit for the general defense.
THE PRESIDENT: It is document number what?
DR. ASCHENAUER: The next few, that is, beginning with Document Petersen No. 70, I offer as Exhibit 71.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Peterson No. 71 as Exhibit 72.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 72 as Exhibit No. 73.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would like to state an objection, Your Honor The prosecution objects to the introduction of Document No. 72, Exhibit No. 73, for the reason that it shows that it deals with the reestablishment of private property in Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which cannot be material nor relevant to the proof of any issue in this case. While I am still at the podium, I would like to point out that Documents 76 through 90, inclusive, deal with the, apparently as far as I can tell, with the penal code and acts in the Soviet Union, and when they are offered, I shall object on the ground that they are not relevant or type to prove any issue in this cause. The Tribunal will -
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will reserve its ruling.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Note the objection.
DR. ASCHENAUER: In answering the statements Mr. LaFollette has made, I would like to say the following: The Tribunal will remember that the witness Behl was asked to comment about the development of law during the so-called Third Reich. He has tried to describe a typical Nazi development, as he called it; he also quoted examples. By doing that, the Prosecution ins tried to describe the legal system which existed in the Reich an a typical Nazi system. Therefore, I cannot be stopped from submitting commentaries about laws which are applied in foreign countries, and if I prove that what existed here was not typical National Socialist Law, I believe I cannot be stopped from drawing a parallel with foreign countries. The Prosecution, through General Taylor, has contended there is a uniform international law; that there is such a thing as a uniform system of law throughout the world. Therefore, I believe that I can also offer and must be permitted to present the proof that there is a. distinction between legal thought in the east and in the west, and that in the middle, in between the German Reich is cited with its legal systems.
Dr. Wandahneider according to the German transcript from pages 710 to 712, has tried to establish a comparison between the National Socialist, British and Soviet law. The Prosecution has objected against that, giving the sane reasons that it gives today. The Court at that tine ruled that the comparison was not applicable in the course of cross examination, but at a later date it could be made, and that is the comparison which I an trying to draw now; and into this comparison belong all these documents. For that reason, I believe, that these documents are relevant.
THE PRESIDENT: We will reserve our ruling until we examine the documents. You may proceed with the offering of them.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 72 is offered as Exhibit No. 73. Document Petersen No. 73 is offered as Exhibit 74.
Document Petersen No. 74 is offered as Exhibit No. 75.
Document Petersen No. 75, as Exhibit No. 76 Document Petersen No. 76 is offered as Exhibit No. 77.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honors, Numbers from 76 through 90, the objection which; I have made, apply. I understand the Court reserved its ruling.
THE PRESIDENT: It is 73.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Exhibit 73; yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: And then Exhibit 77 through to what I assume will be Exhibit 91, Document 76 through Document 90.
TEE PRESIDENT: 90
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 90, which I assume will be probably Exhibit 91.
THE PRESIDENT: We have noted your objection.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Peterson Document No. 77 is offered as Exhibit 78.
Document Petersen No. 78 is offered as Exhibit 79.
Document Peterson No. 79 is offered as Exhibit No. 80.
Document Peterson No. 80 is offered as Exhibit No. 81.
Document Petersen No. 81 is offered as Exhibit 82.
Document Petersen No. 82 is offered as Exhibit No. 83.
Document Petersen No. 83 is offered as Exhibit No. 84.
Document Petersen No. 84 as Exhibit No. 85.
Document Petersen No. -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. What is your next one?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 85, which is offered as Exhibit 86.
Document Petersen No. 86 is offered as Exhibit 87.
Document Peterson No. 87 as Exhibit 88 Document Petersen No. 88 as Exhibit 89 Document Petersen No. 89 as Exhibit 90 Document Peterson No. 90 as Exhibit 91.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection of counsel goes to Exhibit 73 to 91, inclusive.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 73 and from 77 to 91, inclusive. Counsel stated no objection to Exhibit 74, 75 and 76.
THE PRESIDENT: Oh, yes. The objection gees down to and including 91. which is your Document 90.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 91 I am offering as Exhibit 92.
TEE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 92 a,s Exhibit 93.
THE PRESIDENT: Received. Just a moment -- sorry. Your next document is 93, Exhibit 94.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Yes, which is Exhibit 94, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 94 as Exhibit No. 95.
THE PRESIDENT: These two are received -- 94 and 95.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 95 is offered as Exhibit No. 96.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Document Petersen No. 96 is offered as Exhibit 97.
THE PRESIDENT: Received.