Transcript for NMT 3: Justice Case

THE PRESIDENT: There is no objection.

DR. KOESSL: No.

THE PRESIDENT: It is received.

DR. KOESSL: I have now concluded the introduction of my Document Book VII. I can now passon to Document Book No. IX. The first document from Book IX which I offer is Document 215 as Exhibit 206. This contains the provisions governing the administration of an oath or the interrogation of persons who are members, or rather who were members of the Nazi Party or its affiliated organizations. The Tribunal asked me to submit this.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

DR. KOESSL: I should like to draw attention to the fact that in the English translation the word "Gliederung" has been translated by "organization". I am not sure whether this translation is good enough, for these provisions do not govern the cases of people who were members of the affiliated organizations, of the affiliated formations. Perhaps the experts, the interpreters, could give us their views whether the word organization is not too general; affiliated formations. It is the word gliederung alone must appear in the provisions because the other organizations are not covered by these provisions.

THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 206 is received.

DR. KOESSL: Document No. 216 I offer as Exhibit 207. This document contains the transcript of the proceedings in the Heubeck case. It proves that only the judgment in the Heubeck case was used as a basis for the second judgment and that not, as the prosecution asserts, the information received from the concentration camp was used as a basis, for in that case the information obtained from the concentration camp would have had to be read out at the trial. Document No. 217 I offer as Exhibit No. 208. This document contains the judgment in the Zemlicka case, Z-e-m-l-i-c-k-a. The witness Markl referred to that case.

THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 207 and 208 are received -- 207 and 208.

DR. KOESSL: Rothaug Document No. 218 I offer as Exhibit 209. This document contains excerpts from the Schosser files. These excerpts particularly serve to indicate that the proceedings in connection with the the funeral of the Pole had not yet been discontinued. The document further proves that it was the prosecution which instituted the second proceeding and not Rothaug.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received.

DR. KOESSL: Document No. 219 I offer as Exhibit 210. This document contains the judgment in the Gudich which has been discussed here a great many times.

DR. KOESSL: Document No. 220 I offer as Exhibit 211. This is an affidavit by a man called Koch who was a public prosecutor here. I now have finished with my Document Book IX.

THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received. Does that complete the Rothaug defense? The question is -

DR. KOESSL: I have another two document books, No. VIII and No. XI. They should reach me either today or tomorrow.

Court No. III, Case No. 3.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: (Attorney for the Defendant Schlegelberger): I wish to introduce the Schlegelberger Supplement Document Book No. 1.

THE PRESIDENT: What was your last exhibit number, Doctor?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: 107.

THE PRESIDENT: 107.

DR. KUBUSCHOK : The first document is No. 36. It is an affidavit by Dr. Dix. The Exhibit No. 94 has been reserved for that document.

THE PRESIDENT: Will you wait just a moment? Exhibit 94 is received.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document 41, affidavit Dr. Strucksberg for that the exhibit No. 99 has been reserved.

THE PRESIDENT: That was in Document Book II, Document 41?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Hasn't it been in Supplement Book No. 1?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The third document, Your Honor, is Exhibit No. 40.

DR. KUBUSCHOK" The affidavit by Hornef, for this document Exhibit No. 76 has been reserved.

THE PRESIDENT: 76 has been reserved? It is your Document 76, isn't it, and Exhibit 40 was reserved?

DR. KUBUSCHOK: No. The document 76 is Exhibit No. 40, and now I am coming to Document 83, which is to become Exhibit No. 76.

THE PRESIDENT: Exhibit 76 is received.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The next document is an affidavit by Dr. Marenzi. The document number is 44 and I offer it as Exhibit 108.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 47 I offer as Exhibit 109.

THE PRESIDENT: Received.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 75 I offer as Exhibit No. 111.

MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I must object to this document 115 for the reason that there is no preamble in the form prescribed according to the rules.

THE PRESIDENT: Can you agree on the facts so we will not have to examine the document?

MR. LAFOLIETTE: I don't think it is very important. We will withdraw the objection.

THE PRESIDENT: I think you are right. Exhibit 112 is received -both certified and stated to be under oath; it may be irregular in form. The exhibit is received.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 116, the next one on the index, I am not offering. I skip it and pass on to Document 117 which I offer as Exhibit 113.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document No. 120 I offer as Exhibit 116.

THE PRESIDENT: It is received.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document No. 122 I offer as -

THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment. 121 was offered as Exhibit 117, and 122 -

DR. KUBUSCHOK: As Exhibit 118.

THE PRESIDENT: They are received; both of them.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: 124 as Exhibit 120.

THE PRESIDENT: 120 and 121 an received.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document No. 126 is offered as Exhibit 122.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 127 as Exhibit 123.

DR. KUBUSCHOK: The following document I shall have to introduce later; I haven't got it with me at the moment. Document 128 I offer as Exhibit 124. 129 as Exhibit 125.

THE PRESIDENT: They are both received.

THE PRESIDENT: I hope counsel is not going to leave out William Blackstone?

MR. LAFOLLETTE: The only thing about Blackstone -- I don't have William in my book; I don't have anything beyond 107.

THE PRESIDENT: It is not in the book, page 77 seems to be the last page in our book.

DR. KUBOSCHOK: That is due to the fact that the last documents are originals in the English text, that is to say, the original was in Enlish and, therefore, never got to the Translation Department. The English texts are therefore contained in the German version, and, therefore, the whole thing should be re-stapled.

THE PRESIDENT: You can add those later. They will be received when offered. The last one will be 127.

With the exceptions noted, we assume that that disposes of the case of the defendant Schlegelberger, with the exception of the documents which you are going to supply that closes this case does it not?

The Cuhorst document book is available.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: We have the book in English, Your Honor, but then doesn't seem to be any lawyer to put it in.

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary, the Cuhorst supplement is the only thing you have there, is it.

THE SECRETARY: I have books of Dr. Metgenberg but Dr. Schilf says the pagination is not in order.

THE PRESIDENT: Call the attorney for the defendant Cuhorst and tell him we are ready to receive his supplements.

DR. KOESSL: Someone has already gone to get Dr. Brieger.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Have you the document book Mettgenberg over there?

THE SECRETARY: Yes I have three- I have four, sir, but I believe the pagination is bad according to what Dr. Schilf said.

THE PRESIDENT: On the Mettgenberg too?

THE: SECRETARY: Yes, that is the one Dr. Schilf discussed.

THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.

DR. BRIEGER: Your Honor, I have just been to ask the defense information center what has happened to my remaining documents and for Court?

3, Case 3 the last week I have been going there about three or four tines a day, Unfortunately, they have not promised me for certain when they will have the documents ready for me to submit them.

Captain Rice actually told me that in the case of quite a few documents the translations cannot be found. I don't think at all this is Captain Rice's fault but I think it is very likely that the German staff has made some mistake.

THE PRESIDENT: We were told your Cuhorst supplement is available here and ready to introduce.

DR. BRIEGER: Captain Rice told me and I also walked to Mr. Reese who is in charge of the translation department.....

THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Secretary General, are you possessed at this moment with the Cuhorst Supplement Books?

THE SECRETARY: Supplement I.

THE PRESIDENT: Cuhorst I; yes.

THE SECRETARY: Yes.

THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready to introduce them? They are here.

DR. BRIEGER: Then I will go back to my office and do it right away, Your Honor.

THE PRESIDENT: I wonder if some defense counsel will inform the evanescent Dr. Schilf that he should be prepared to complete the oral examination of the witness Klemm? I see he is not here. We were informed he desired to do so, Dr. Schilf, to call the defendant Klemm. He should be prepared to do so.

DR. BRIEGER: On account of the objection which the Prosecution voiced the other day when I wished to introduce several of my documents, I have now put them into the right shape and I should be very glad if I could now submit to the Tribunal my documents 134, 135 and 136. I should like to ask the representative of the Secretary General whether he has with him the affidavit by Reiger, the affidavit of Dinkelacker and the affidavit of Sommert in the new version. The document numbers are 134, 133 and 136. I shall now submit my documents. Exhibit 125 is Cuhorst document 134, an affidavit by Reiger.

THE PRESIDENT: What is that? The book which we have starts with document 124, document book 126. but I assume that is an error.

MR. LAFOLLETTE: As I understand it, these are correction documents.

DR. BRIEGER: Yes.

MR. LA FOLLETTE: But I can't agree to certain affidavit unless I get them in English. I don't know what has been substituted.

DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Court that were exactly the misgivings which I had and that is why I went back to the Defense Information Center today and was told those document were not available, and I had first thought they were available.

THE PRESIDENT: May I ask you a question? Me have here a supplement book. It is marked document book 126, and contains documents numbered 124 to 127, inclusive. Are you prepared to offer those documents at this time?

DR. BRIEGER: If you would allow me to go through the documents. For the moment I am having great difficulty; because my Secretary has gone away.

THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until one-thirty. We are wasting time this morning.

(The Tribunal adjourned until 1330 hours, 23 September 1947)

AFTERNOON SESSION (The Tribunal reconvened at 1330 hours, 23 September 1947)

THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.

DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, before I submit the documents which the Court expects me to submit, may I be permitted to suggest that Dr. Schilf begin with with his material, because he is in a great hurry?

THE PRESIDENT: That is agreeable to the Tribunal. You may proceed, Dr. Schilf.

DR. SCHILF (Counsel for the Defendant Klemm): May it please the Tribunal, I wish to call the Defendant Klemm to the witness stand to give us a brief explanation of what he has to say concerning documents which have been submitted in the meantime.

THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.

HERBERT KLEMM, a witness, having been previously duly sworn, took the stand and testified as follows:

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF:

Q. Mr. Klemm , yesterday, in the course of the afternoon, the Prosecution offered a bundle of documents and stated specifically that these documents were directed against you and so were submitted in evidence against you.

Have you had an opportunity to scan through these documents so that you are now in a position to comment upon them?

A. I have here before me, first of all, Exhibit 605, and apparently Exhibit 607 belongs to it. Exhibit 607 is a proclamation by the General Commissioner for Public Security at the Hague. The proclamation is dated 25 February 1941, and it refers to incidents in the same manner as Exhibit 605, apparently, incidents which occurred art Amtsterdam about two or throe weeks before I left Holland and was transferred to Munich.

Referring to these matters, I can only say that as to the incidents , as well as to the measures which were planned, I did not obtain any information before-hand, and afterwards I got only that which was occasionally discussed at the Luncheon table.

As can also be seen from Exhibit 611, the General Commisioner's Office for Security -- that is, the Office of the Commissioner of Police -- was quite separate from the General Commissioner for Administration and Justice, and the Administration of Justice had nothing to do with these matters at all.

Furthermore, the Prosecution submitted Exhibits 606 and 608. They are newspapers clippings from Dutch papers dated the beginning of March 1941. These newspaper clippings are reports about death sentences which had been pronounced at that time in the Netherlands. These documents, quite apparently, were submitted by the Prosecution in connection with the fact that during my first testimony in the witness box I said that according to my recollection, as long as I was in the Netherlands and in charge of the German Administration of Justice, no death sentences had been pronounced.

These newspaper clippings do not contradict my statement in any way, because all that is contained in Exhibits 606 and 608 are solely sentences pronounced by German Military Courts, but not by German Civil Courts under the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories. The jurisdiction of the German Military Courts, for which the Military Commander of the Occupied Territories was competent, had nothing to do with the jurisdiction and the sphere of jurisdiction of the Reich Commissioner for the Occupied Netherlands Territories. It was quite separate from that; we had no influence in that sphere.

Q. Have you mentioned all the documents yet?

A. No, not yet.

The Prosecution, by submitting Exhibits 609 and 610, presented copies of letters written by me.

One - this is Exhibit 609 - is a letter of 3 October 1942. That is from a period when, for a long time -- that is to say, for a year and a half -- I had been stationed at Munich. The reason for that letter was a conversation or an exchange of correspondence which I had with the General Commissioner for Administration and Justice , Dr. Wimmer, at the Hague. He asked me, once back in Germany, to deal again with personnel matters that the Administration of Justice in the occupied Netherlands Territories was concerned with. That explains why I wrote that letter a year and a half later. He had asked me to make suggestions to him concerning changes in personnel and to give him my opinion on the character of the individual concerned. What my attitude was toward his personnel policy can be seen from the letter itself, particularly at page 2 at the top cf that page.

Exhibit 610 was also submitted. No. 610 contains several letters, opinions concerning drafts cf legislation. The civilian administration in the Netherlands had a department of its own for legislation where laws were drafted, and here there were drafts which had been prepared by other departments, Finance, Administration, Economy, Police, which had been demanded by these other departments. As far as we in the Justice Department were concerned, we only received these drafts from time to time in order to scrutinize them for their juridical accuracy. There are two letters also contained in this document.

Q. Excuse me, Mr. Klemm, if I interrupt you. Will you give us the document number of the letter which you intend to mention now?

A. It is Exhibit 610, document NG-2484.

Q. Thank you.

A. There are two opinions, the first and the third referring to drafts of laws, the text of which was not submitted by the Prosecution at the same time. Therefore, at this time, I cannot even tell whether these decrees were issued at all or to what drafts reference was made.

I only want to state, briefly, that in the course of the weeks and months we received seven or eight drafts from this legislative department dealing with the same law, and in the end the matter looked entirely different from what it had been intended to be originally, and when it was finally published.

Then I should like to point to the last letter in this exhibit where an opinion is stated concerning the draft which had been submitted in its sixth version already. So much for Document 610.

Exhibit 612 is NG-2480. It is a letter by the Dutch GeneralSecretary Tenkink, referring to a report by the Dutch General Prosecutor from The Hague which he sends to me to forward it to Dr. Wimmer. It is concerned with penal offenses against Jews committed by members of the NSDAP, National Socialist Netherlands Workers Party. In other words, there are penal offenses committed by Dutchmen against Dutchmen for which the German courts had no jurisdiction.

The report was also sent to the General Commissioner for Public Safety. The letter was written on the 16 of July, 1940. On the 17th of July already as you can see from the notation, that is to say, on the next dry I immediately reported the matter to the Reich Commissioner in the presence of three General Commissioners and since that was a matter purely concerning the Netherlands the Reich Commissar at that time decided that it should remain in the Netherlands sector out that the German police should support the Netherlands police as far as investigations were concerned. That is why, on the basis of these directives, I could make the notation. The matter would further be dealt with by General Commissioner Tenkink. That was the police commissioner and for me thus that matter was settled.

Now, concerning Exhibit 613, this is a, notation about my trip to the Reich minister of Justice. I have nothing to add to it because the notation speaks for itself and only confirms what I have already said in connection with these matters.

The same applies to Exhibit 615, NG-2519; it is a decree about German. Judiciary in the Netherlands. The decrees which were marked as Exhibit 616, that is, 2112-PS, and Exhibit 617, 3332-PS when they were submitted by the Prosecution, these two decrees I do not know at all. They were issued about five months after I had already left the Netherlands, that is, in the month of August, 1941.

The opinions contained in Exhibit 610, which I mentioned before, have nothing to do with these two decrees.

Now, referring to Exhibits 618 and 614, 618 is 3323-PS and 614 is 3333-PS. These decrees likewise have nothing to do with the General Commissioner for the Administration of Justice. We were only told at the time that these were supposed to present purely administrative measures, measures of control.

There remain only those exhibits submitted in connection with my work in the Netherlands, the two affidavits, one by Kazemier - Exhibit 619, NG-2310, and the affidavits which were given by the GeneralSecretary of the Minister of Justice of the Netherlands - that is Dr. Tenkink - together with his deputy. Dr. Hooykaas.

DR. SCHILD: In this connection may I state the following: The affidavits of these two Dutch gentlemen were submitted on my initiative. I am going to submit originals on the same occasion when I submit the remaining Klemm documents. I have no objection to the fact that the Prosecution has submitted these affidavits; because the Prosecution has also sent a request to these two gentlemen and sent these gentlemen the transcript of the interrogation of the defendant Klamm, so that they could refer to it. That was also done and the two gentlemen stated in detail how far they agreed with the statements made by the defendant Klemm.

BY DR. SCHILF:

Q Mr. Klemm, I am referring to Exhibit 611, NG-2311. In a statement made by these two gentlemen from the Netherlands, there on Page 4, reference is made to our transcript, German page --, English Page -I am not quite sure which one it is - 5098, that is the English transcript, I see now - and mention was made of the fact that the introduction of the German Administration of Justice for the civilian population in Holland had been supported by the gentlemen.

Both gentlemen mentioned, however, that they were against the introduction. It is possible that the word "introduction", on account of the translation having been made from the German into the Dutch, from the Dutch into the English and from the English back into the German received a wrong meaning.

Will you please comment on that, Mr. Klemm?

A There must have been an error or misunderstanding on account of the various translations. I went through the German transcript again and there it says about me literally that I talked with these three gentlemen, with Tenkink, and with Hooykaas and also with Kazemier about the establishment of German administration of Justice. By "institution" or "establishment", I understood at that time as I do today, the institution, the institute of the German Administration of Justice; I did not mean to say however, that I spoke with the two gentlemen about the establishing of the Administration of Justice, beforehand.

After the German Administration of Justice had been established in the Netherlands, I frequently spoke to these three gentleman collectively and individually about these matters and I also thought the matter over very carefully. I can state now positively that I remember quite well that Mr. Kazemier - that is the third one of the two gentlemen, the one whose name I already mentioned when I first was questioned and whose name I could not remember at the time -asked me once whether we could not, for instance, bring those Dutchmen before the German courts who had committed offenses against the blackout regulations.

At the time I rejected that, saying that these would concern the Dutch interests at least as well, and that it therefore should remain with the Dutch courts. But I deny having discussed with the gentlemen the establishing of the institution of the German Administration of Justice in the Netherlands, adding that I did not say so not intended to. After this misunderstanding could be cleared up I only have to refer to one point as far as these affidavits are concerned. That is in Exhibit 611 on Page 7 of the German text.

In the affidavit, according to that passage, it is said that during the tine when I was in the Netherlands, death sentences were pronounced. That can only refer to sentences pronounced by military courts, by courts martial, which, however, as I have stated here, had nothing to do with the administration of justice with which I was concerned. I have nothing else to add in connection with these affidavits.

Q MR. Klemm, in rebuttal, Exhibit 567 was submitted. That was during the testimony of the Defendant Nebelung as far as I remember. That was a sentence of the People's Court against a Czech by the name of Nahavicka. In that document, your name is referred to. It is said that you had given instruction that the clemency decision had to be made by the General Public Prosecutor in Breslau -- Nahavicka. at that time was in Breslau - and. Breslau, on account of the war damages, was without connection to Berlin. Would you please, comment on that too?

A I do not have this exhibit before me now, but when I read it at the time, I found out that I have to state the following: the case Nahavicka had nothing at all to do with my general instructions. It must have been that the general question was brought into that case Nahavicka; according to what I can remember of these files, it had already been completed. The Reich Protector had the right to file an indictment, not the Reich Minister of Justice in that case, and the Reich Protector had refused to make a clemency decision already in December.

In January, Breslau was suddenly declared a fortress on account of the surprising attack by the Russians. On account of that statement and. of the situation in the Reich, without reference to the Nahavicka. case, I issued instructions to the General Public Prosecutor in Breslau by telegram, I believe, or by telephone - I am not sure which it was - that from now on the clemency decision had to be made by him because due to the war situation it was no longer possible to obtain contact with Berlin. Then when it became known that it was possible to transfer the prisoners from Breslau and it therefore was no longer necessary to leave the clemency decision to him, the matter was brought to my attention again.

Apparently it was a decision that had been made by the Minister, and the decision was made that for the time being the clemency decision should be made in Berlin in the Ministry, Only because this second instruction contradicted the first instruction which I had issued, it was submitted to me to take notice of it. The instruction given to the General Public Prosecutor in Breslau was only a communication to one individual General Public Prosecutor, a procedure about which the Minister had already talked before in his circular decree generally; that is to say, that the General Public Prosecutor should have the right of decision in clemency matters if on account of the war situation connections with the Reich Minister of Justice were interrupted.

Q I think that takes care of this. I have one last question. Among the documents which have been submitted for Dr. Rothenberger, there is a statement by Dr. Hans Segelken on 22 April 1947. It contains a so-called memorandum which Dr. Segelken had prepared before the surrender of Germany about the question why Dr. Rothenberger had to leave his post as Under-Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice. Dr. Segelken, in that so-called memorandum, mentioned your name in connection with Thierack, and he states: "Both, for considerable time before the seizure of power, worked together on the SA. From that period they knew each other." Is that correct?

A That statement is wrong because only five months after Hitler became Reich Chancellor, I joined the SA, as can be seen from my personal file; and Dr. Thierack joined the SA even later, that is to say, he was taken into the SA with an honorary rank.

Q This morning a document was submitted against you. That is Exhibit -- please could you tell me the number?

A It is Exhibit 637, Document NG-2280.

Q Would you please comment on that?

A It is a notation which must have come from the Hamburg file a notation of 26 July 1938. Part of it is an extract from the "Deutsche Justiz", the official gazette of the Ministry, where a book review was published which I had written. The book in question was "Political Protective Custody in National Socialist Germany". The book was written by - I think it was a Regierungsrat Geigennueller from the Ministry of Justice. In that book review, I expressed my opinion against the then-prevailing opinion that the administration of justice should not be permitted to investigate protective custody measures or no agency at all should be permitted to do so, even if that was concerned with punishable offenses.

BY THE PRESIDENT:

Q May I ask you a question. Your last statement was a little involved in negatives. Let me be sure I understand. Was it your position that the administration of justice should be authorized to inquire into those matters?

AAs far as punishable offenses were concerned.

Q Yes.

A That right was disputed in this book, and although careful as one had to be at that time - I objected to it in that book review. And. Mr. Letz had that copied in order to take further steps in the same sense as I had suggested, that was, the possibility of an investigation by the administration of justice in consequence of the thoughts I had expressed.

DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal, I have no further questions to this witness. I leave it to the Prosecution, if the Prosecution wants to conduct cross examination.

THE PRESIDENT: Have you any questions?

MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor.

CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:

Q You recoil in your direct examination, do you not, you stated that you were only interested in having legal points of view brought forth in Holland and not any political points of view. Maybe you would like to read further from NG--2424, that is Exhibit 610, and elaborate upon No. 5, re figure 7, in which you say, "As the majority of the Dutch nation has no political view at present, such measure would have the opposite effect." Didn't you have in mind changing the political view of the Dutch nation?

A How shall I understand that question? In the field of the administration of justice - and that was my field - there I proceeded according to legal points of view, and in this Exhibit 610 I only referred to and commented on other plans. Just whet you are putting to me now begins with the sentence -- I have it only in German here: "These measures I consider absolutely impossible of carrying out; beyond that, I considered them psychologically erroneous." But of course today I am no longer in a. position to say what just that point 7 looked like what it was all about.

Q All right. As I recall, you also stated that all the time you were in Holland you got along vary wall because the Dutch Ministry considered that you were vary reliable. I'd like to turn to Exhibit 609, that is, NG-2483, and on page four of the original I find this sentence in parenthesis--after you have been discussing Dr. Krug-and I will quota it to you: "I admit though that ha is much more obliging and lass robust than myself, but perhaps that is no shortcoming." Am I to understand that you were vary rubust in dealing with the Dutch or that you were vary lenient with them so that they regretted your leaving?

A No, that has to be understood differently. That I did get along with the Dutchmen is proved by the affidavit that you submitted by Tenkink and Hooykaas. That sentence is only mentioned here as a comparison to Dr. Krug whom I had recommended in this latter. If people here would know Dr. Krug, then they would also know that I-maybe one can explain it better by saying that in comparison with Dr. Krug I make a somewhat rustic impression and am not as obliging as Dr. Krug.

Q And now this Dr. Hans Maier that you recommended--the Dr. Hans Maiar that you recommended to the Dutch from Nuernberg. Isn't that the famous SS Maier that was than an SS judge?

A Yes. I knew Meier from the time when ha was a Referent in Saxony together with ma. What work ha did and that he was at all in the SS I didn't even know at that time because for more than tan years I have not seen him. I only saw him occasionally, once in Munich, and that is what reminded ma again of him.

Q If you had only seen him that length of time, perhaps you can tell ma why you ware able to say "he was an extraordinarily severe judge who, above all things, has good political training. I suggest to sand him to the Hague under promotion to the Director of the District Court."

A I got information about Maiar from somebody, but I could not Court No. III, Case No. 3.tell now from whom.

Transcript for NMT 3: Justice Case

Defendants