I should like to say that I am inclined to think that I asked the Personnel Referent in the Ministry of Justice about him, but I couldn't be quite sure about that.
Q Then perhaps you will explain to me how in connection with your belief in the constitutional state and the mild treatment of the Dutch, in this letter you recommend "an extraordinarily severe judge who has good political training"?
A That is no contradiction, is it, that a severe judge can still be a good judge--a man of justice?
Q That is the way you meant the letter? That is what you had in mind for the Dutch, was it?
AA just judge. Anybody who commits an offense has to be punished justly. That was my point of view and I held the same opinion if it concerned my own people as well as others.
Q What did the political training have to do with it then?
A I did not speak of political training but a very fine feeling for politics, a very fine sense for political matters. I certainly consider it right to employ in a foreign country people with a fine sense for political relations and matters and not people idea are clumsy and do not take into account the mentality of that foreign country. That is what I expressed in that letter.
On the top of page two, as I have mentioned before, I pointed out that highly developed political sense.
Q Now I notice that you describe yourself here on your stationery, on which this letter is written in 1942, as a department chief Klemm. Is that a correct description of yourself in the Party Chancellory?
A I had to do that because I was in the Party Chancellory, and according to the copy here I used the stationery of the Party Chancellory. As a rule, we always used our official title as government officials, but a directive was received at that time stating that we should use these designations, but after a week or two that was dropped Court No. III, Case No. 3.again.
Q This is the same position that you held all the time that you were in the Party Chancellory, is it?
A Yes. The Chief of Justice, Group III-C.
Q I think that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may be excused.
(Witness is excused.)
DR. SCHILF: May it please the Tribunal concerning the Document Book for Dr. Mettgenberg, I inquired about some translations missing and I was told that before Thursday I could not receive the books completed.
THE PRESIDENT: You expect to receive them by Thursday, is that correct?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Does that close the defense of the case KLemm, except for the documents?
DR. SCHILF: For the Defendant Klemm, I only have a few documents which are still in translation, but I have no more witnesses. As far as the witnesses or the hearing of the defendant himself is concerned, I have concluded.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, may I be permitted now to submit a few documents for my client Cuhorst, the documents which the Tribunal expected me to submit this morning? I apologize again that this morning I was not prepared, but the reason was that I intended to submit all documents at the same time and I was told that not all of them had been completed. May I base myself on the assumption that at the end of my submission of documents, on 9 September, according to page 8510 of the English transcript, I came to Exhibit No. 124 which was reserved for the restitution law concerning national socialist wrongs. It is Document No. 127 in the supplement book which the Tribunal expects me to submit. Mr. Woolsey, the representative of The Secretary-General, informed me before that the (Court No. III, Case No. 3.English translation is before the Tribunal; therefore, I can submit this law with the Exhibit No. 124.
THE PRESIDENT: I found where you referred to Exhibit No. 124 and that is to be what document number?
DR. BRIEGER: Document No. 127. Now I come to my Exhibit 125, that is Document No.124, the affidavit by Berthold Diesener, which is the first document in the supplement volume, and it is listed in the index as the first document.
THE PRESIDENT: You're offering that as Exhibit 125?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, your Honor. Now I see that Mr. La Follette is just about to object because he suspects that I want to offer the affidavit Schoeck. He doesn't have to bother because I don't want to submit it. The next exhibit number I offer is 126, that is the Cuhorst document 126, an affidavit by Gisela von der Trenck. It contains the French text of a French law which I consider of greatest importance for this trial.
Thus I have concluded the submission of documents for the time being and I ask to submit the rest of my documents as soon as I receive them from translation. May I at this occasion also mention that I should like to reserve the right to call my client into the witness box to hear his testimony concerning documents or witnesses which have been introduced here after he had been on the witness stand.
My attention is called to one matter, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Have there been documents or witnesses who have testified against the defendant Cuhorst in rebuttal?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. I am referring to the two witnesses who have been produced afterwards by the prosecution. They were questioned here. They testified here after my client Cuhorst was on the witness stand.
THE PRESIDENT: Who were they?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, as far as I can remember, we called Gramm who identified this so-called Fuehrer Information Sheet No. 63. Dr. Gramm testified that that was a valid Fuehrer information Sheet. Certainly it was in rebuttal because all the evidence that was in here was that it wasn't. Now, other than that, I don't remember calling anybody against Cuhorst, to my knowledge,
DR. BRIEGER: In this case I am not referring to Mr. Gramm. Of course, I should like to have the opportunity to hear my client's opinion, but I mean the other gentleman who, shortly after Cuhorst was on the witness stand, were called by the prosecution and introduced here
MR. LAFOLLETTE: They were cross-examined, Your Honor. They were cross-examined and it was purely rebuttal testimony. It wasn't in chief as far as I know.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to submit the affidavit Kleinknecht at this time. I offer it as Exhibit No. 55, Document No. 47; also the affi davit Frey, Exhibit No. 69.
THE PRESIDENT: Just a moment, please. What is the exhibit that you are first offering?
DR. BRIEGER: The affidavit Kleinknecht of 2 July 1947, Exhibit No. 55, Your Honor, Document No. 47.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, that has been received.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, but afterwards I found out from the transcript that that affidavit had already been received by the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit has been received. Are you satisfied?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, but I still have to hand the document to the Tribunal.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
DR. BRIEGER: The same is true of the affidavit by Frey, which has already received the exhibit number 69. It is Document 65,
THE PRESIDENT: It is received. You may deliver it.
DR. BRIEGER? For the time being that is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Exhibits 124, 125, and 126 Cuhorst are received. Dr. Brieger, will you approach the bench, please?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, surely.
THE PRESIDENT: The secretary hands us papers of which we know nothing but which he says you have delivered to him and which you say are important. Do you care to explain them?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes. Pardon me a moment, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Brieger, you may be prepared to examine your client tomorrow morning at nine-thirty on the matter of the two witnesses if it appears that they testified against your client.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor. May I give some explanation of this, Your Honors?
I submitted before, as Exhibit 124, Document No. 127, the Restitution Law concerning National Socialist wrongs. It is on the index of a document book which is before Your Honors, but in fact the text isn't in there. Only the pages are reserved for it. That is why I was very harpy this morning when I was told by the representative of the Secretary-General that in the meantime it is available but in loose sheets.
In accordance with that, these loose sheets are the pages of that law which really should be contained in that volume. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
THE PRESIDENT: You want the sheets attached to Supplement Book I?
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: As Exhibit 124?
DR. BRIEGER: That is right.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
DR. BRIEGER: In order to prevent a misunderstanding, I would like to say that I reserve particularly the right to submit those affidavits which have been objected to the other day. I had the originals but I cannot submit them because I have not received the new translations yet.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Is there any other testimony to be offered by any defendant at this time? If not, I believe the prosecution has a witness.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: If Your Honor please, the prosecution, I hope, has a witness. We have a witness in connection with material that we have been trying to get out of the photostat room. I will make inquiry if it is out. Then we can put the witness on.
THE PRESIDENT: You said you would be ready at one-thirty.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Exactly. Your Honor. That witness is available and already present. We must have the photostat material in connection with his testimony and we thought we had arrangements made to have it. I will see if it is available.
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will recess until the matter is available for us.
(A recess was taken.)
THE. MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If your Honors please, may I offer three exhibits before we call the witness? This should conclude the prosecution's exhibits.
NG-1018 the prosecution offers as Prosecution Exhibit No. 638. This is a rebuttal document against the defendant Joel.
THE PRESIDENT: The exhibit is received; Exhibit 638.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: If Your Honors please, I would next like to offer--which is duly certified--an additional page to Exhibit 509, which was NG-836. This is a page which was inadvertently left out of an exhibit introduced in chief against the defendant Lautz. It contains the decision on the clemency plea by the defendant Rothenberger. I are offering it duly certified, but ask that it be placed with Exhibit 509.
JUDGE HARDING: You are offering it as a separate exhibit?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No, Your Honor, it is simply a certification of a page which was inadvertently emitted from that exhibit.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received as a part cf Exhibit 509.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Finally, with reference to Exhibit 589, about which the Court made inquiry this morning, I am offering document NG-2(36 as Exhibit 589. This was originally identified as 3770-PS. I would like to explain that that PS number in itself constituted excerpts taken from the Ministry cf Justice diary during IMT; so that we have taken the basic diary and made an excerpt from that which we have identified as NG-2536, which is Exhibit 589, previously identified The Court will recall that it was during the cross-examination cf the witness Hartmann for the defendant Rothenberger where this arose.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 589 is received.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: And if Your Honor will permit me, I will dispose of one other of the matters which the Court called to my attention this morning, Exhibit 538.
I simply ask to have the exhibit number remain, with the notation that the prosecution has withdrawn the exhibit which was identified under that number.
In ether words, we do not care to introduce it. It was identified.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well; 538 is withdrawn.
Did you ascertain about Exhibit 560?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I have asked for copies of that, and hope to have it in here for Your Honor this afternoon. As I understand it, Your Honors, it had been received, but the Court had no copies in English.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that is correct.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, and in 592 Your Honor had only a German copy. I will get the English copies of that.
Exhibit 576 was identification, and I am checking up on what actually happened t that exhibit. I hope to notify the Court tomorrow morning.
MR. KING: The Prosecution calls the witness, Herr Rottner.
WOLFGANG Rottner, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Fitness, hold up your right hand and repeat after me the following oath: I swear by God, the Almighty, and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth, and will withheld and add nothing.
(The witness repeated the oath).
You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION.
BY MR. KING:
Q Now Herr Rottner -
A Yes.
Q For the purpose of the record will you kindly state your full name and your present address?
A Wolfgang Rottner, Justice Inspector, Nuernberg. Muggenheferstrasse, 94.
Q Herr Rottner, I ask you in the past few weeks or days if you have made a certain compilation, which I now show you, identified with the number NG-2533. One moment please. Herr Rottner, the document new before you, was that compiled under your direction?
A It was compiled at my instructions. I could not actually supervise all the compilation.
Q Yes, due to the magnitude of the job you had to delegate certain of your assistants to aid you in your compilation?
A Yes.
Q Before I ask you further questions, Herr Rottner, will you explain in a little more detail of what your official duties consist?
A I am the legal assistant at the real estate office in Nuernberg, Germany. I have to make entries in a real estate register, and I have to make out an order such entries to be made, and any entries that has been made I have to affix my signature to it. Naturally, I don't make all the entries myself.
There are other people who deal with such matters, too.
MR. KING: At this point I should like to have identified, or marked for identification the compilation NG-2533, for which we request the next exhibit number 639 reserved.
THE WITNESS: What number is that? What number is that?
BY MR. KING:
Q Excuse me. Herr Rottner, I was speaking to the Court and nee to you at that particular moment. Now Herr Rottner, will you tell the Court what is this compilation, which has been identified, and before you now, which is the original?
A I have here the original compilation of the real estate office in Nuernberg, which used to be the property of the Jews, and which were later transferred to Holz, who re-transferred it to the new owners.
Q Herr Rottner, I wont to explain me thing for the benefit of the Court before you proceed.
MR. KING: We are offering this document in the in-translated German with the belief that with the exception of the headings, that it is comprehensible since it deals in names and figures for the most part.
Q Now Herr Rottner, may I ask you to take the first page -
A Yes.
Q Of the compilation, and read the heading of each column. There are a total of ten columns, and will you for the education cf all of us, who do not read German, indentify these headings?
A Yes, I will. The register has ten headings, and the first column is headed "Real Estate Office." This is the registry section where the entries are made in the real estate register. The second column gives the number of the house, the name of street, or it gives the owner designation, that is called the real estate register.
The third column is headed with the words " Former Owners." The fourth column shows the date when consent was given to transfer the property to the new owner -- correction, consent was given to transfer the property to Holz. The next column shows the purchase price which Holz should have paid. The next column shows the entry of the name of the former owner, on the basis of the general consent of Holz to restify the registry date, consent which he gave on 24 April 1940. The next column shows the late on which the entry was made with the name of the new owner. The next column is the column that shows the previous owner, and that column is different, and the column of which I am speaking now shows the date of the transfer when the new owner took over.
Q Yes, making it ten columns. I am sorry, you still have one more column. You still have the last column. I am sorry.
A Yes, I have two more columns to explain. The next column shows the purchase price, and the notation of the name of the person who paid the purchase price that has been paid in accordance with the notary register, and with that I have read all the columns.
Q Yes, now Herr Rottner -
A Yes.
Q I should like to ask you one or two preliminary questions, and then I should like to have you proceed to take a typical case and explain in some detail what the particular transaction represented. Now under column three in the compilation you have the words "Former owner". In every case that would be a Jewish owner, is that correct?
A Yes, yes.
Court No. III. Case No. III.
Q. Now, Herr Rottner, will you please take a typical case which I should like to have you select and explain, beginning in the first column and continue through each of the succeeding columns exactly what happened in the history of that piece of real estate?
A. Yes I will. Nell, let us assume we are dealing with No. 5 on the first sheet, Volumn 31, Page 84. It relate to the house at 52 Guentherstrasse, The former owners were Tuchmann, Elizabeth, daughter of a merchant in Nurmberg and two other persons who owned this house together. Consent to transfer property to Karl Holz was given on 8 December, 1938 and an entry was duly made in the real estate register on this same date. The purchase price which was paid was Reichs marks 7,470. Then the entry was rectified. Following the general rectification, the previous owner was re-entered and on the 25 of August, 1941 Elise Tuchmann and the other two people had their names entered again. I have dealt with the consent to transfer and with the entry; both took place on the 23 of August, 1941.
On the same date, that is, on the 23 of August, the new owner's name was entered and the new owner was the Nazi Party with its seat at Munich. The purchase price paid was Reichsmarks 76,000. According to the certificate made out by the notary, special account No, 70202, Tuchmann. That was the name of the old owners.
Q. Yes. Now, Herr Rottner, may I ask you to again, on the case which you have just explained for us, may I ask you to look under the fifth column which is headed Kaufpreis or selling price and I ask you to note there the price 7,470 Reichsmarks. Approximately what percentage of the assessed valuation of the property did 7,470 Reichsmarks represent?
A. This amount of Reichmarks 7,470 as a rule amounted to ten percent of the taxable value. That was not so in all cases out it was like that as a rule.
I would like to say well, generally speaking, that it amounted to ten percent.
Q. Yes, Now, would you say that the taxable value in Germany, as it is in many other countries, is less than the actual or real value?
A. Yes. In many cases I think that would be so.
Q. Yes. Now, a moment ago you said that this was the amount which was supposed to have been paid to the Jewish owner. Let me ask you, is there any record that Gauleiter Holz actually paid that one-tenth of the assessed value to the former owners in any of these cases?
A. I don't think so. I don't know. I don't know for certain but I don't think that Holz paid anything but I don't know. It is just my opinion.
Q. Well, on your examination of the records of these pieces of property numbering more than 220 did you find any instance where the record showed that Holz had paid the owners this figure?
A. No, no. I cannot remember that I ever saw it in writing that Holz paid over that money.
Q. Now, may I ask you, please, to look again at Case 3 under Column 7, Do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. That is the entry date for the new owner. You mentioned that the original Jewish owner's name was again placed on the record before the property was transferred to the new owner. Now, Herr Rottner, I want to ask just one question on that point. Was this a mere formal entry of the name or did it have some significance?
A. Well, the significance was that the former owners became owners again. The entry said that the entry of the name of Holz became invalid and the owners are again the persons who formerly had been owners. That meant that Holz was eliminated and the former owners were reinstated as owners.
Q. Will you explain then what the next step was? Did these former owners who were reinstated, did they in fact have control of own the property?
A. Well, in the real survey they appeared as owners but the new contract was submitted and that was done on the same day. In other words, the property was immediately retransferred to another new owner and in this case the new owner was the Nazi Party.
Q. Yes, Now, going to the nineth column, the next to the last column, we see there the figure of 76,000 Reichmarks which is, I presume, in this case very close to the assessed valuation of that property. What happened to that money? Was it actually paid over and if so, to whom?
A. On the basis of the notary's certificate this money was to be paid over to the special account No. 70202 for the Tuchmann family, that is to say, the former owners whose name was Tuchmann, but under the supervision of the Gestapo. I think that this was an account of the Gestapo and they just put the name Tuchmann there so that one should know whose money it really was, I don't really know. This is only a conclusion after all from the files.
Q. You conclude that the name Tuchmann after all from the files.
Q. You conclude that the name Tuchmann after the account number merely identifies it as money coming from the Tuchmanns but it was the account of the Gestapo. Is that correct?
A. I think that is how it was. I think that is how it was.
THE PRESIDENT: You don't mean that the money came from the Tuchmanns?
MR. KING: No.
THE PRESIDENT: That is what you said.
MR. KING: I am sorry.
A. (continuing): That money was really due to the Tuchmann family because they were the former owners, but it was transferred, or the idea was to transfer it, to this special account No. 70202, that special account of the Gestapo.
BY MR. KING:
Q. Yes.
A. And Tuchmann was just entered there as a sort of designation.
Q. Herr Rottner, did you find, in looking over this compilation of more than 220 cases, any instance where the property was in fact returned to the former Jewish owners?
A Well, it was returned in exceptional cases that may have happened, but it only happened where there were no new owners and in those cases the real estate register was rectified and a note was put to the effect that Holz was no longer the owner and that the owners were again the former owners who had been reinstated. That is to say, there was no new owner and in that case the property again went to the former owners, the true former owners. Such cases have happened but only a very few.
Q. Yes, Did you, Herr Rottner, in going over this compilation, find an entry concerning property originally by one Landsberger?
A. Yes.
Q. What case number is that, please?
A. I think Landsberger is Rook 11 -- I don't have the file number. That should be at the bottom. We always put those numbers at the bottom. Yes, I have found it. Gleisshammer Book 14, Volume 1173.
Q. That is identified by what number on the compilation which you have before you, Herr Rottner?
A. It is No. 9. It is the Red No. 9.
Q. On the second page of the compilation?
A. Yes, yes; on the second page.
Q. Herr Rottner, have you been shown the transcript of the record in this case at Pages 6628 and 6626 in which the Defendant Joel testified concerning the property transfer of one Meder Landsberger?
A. Yes, a man has shown it to me. In fact it is what I have got before me now.
Q. And is this the same Meder Landsberger here in Item No. 9 on the second page of this compilation about which the Defendant Joel testified?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell me, Herr Rottner, was this a typical case of Ayanization of property, the Landsberger case?
A. Nell, what of course is striking about this particular case is that Mrs. Landsberger was not a Jewess, See was of Aryan descent and she tried to defend herself against this transfer of property, and as far as I know her complaint worked and she was reinstated. That is to say, her daughter they became the owner. Her name is Meder Marianne.
Q. And Meder Landsberger eventually sold the property and retained the selling price herself, is that correct, on the basis of the findings which you have made?
A. I can't tell you that from looking at my list, but the files should show it. It says the purchase price was twenty-six thousand marks and the remainder will be due when the house is vacated. Who actually received the money, I can't tell you. It is very doubtful if any one can tell from the file.
Q. In any event, Herr Rottner, the original owner received the property back because she was not a Jew* she was an Aryan, and Holz's name was stricken and her name was reentered as the actual owner; is that correct?
A. Yes. There was an entry made amending the entry made on the 24th of January, 1941, and the date on which the new contract was made was the 15th of February, 1942.
Q. And do the files on that case show a letter of complaint from Meder Landsberger in which she raised the question?
A. Yes. As far as I remember there is a complaint contained in this file volume; in that letter she points out she is an Aryan and that she wants to get her property back.
MR. KING: We have no further questions of this witness. We do offer the document in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT; The exhibit is received. Will there be any cross examination? If so, it will take place in the morning.
We will recess until tomorrow morning at 9:30.
(The Tribunal adjourned until 24 September, 194?, at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal III, in the matter of the United States of America against Josef Altstoetter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 24 September 1947, 0930-1630, The Honorable James T. Brand, presiding.
THE MARSHAL: The Honorable, the Judges of 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, nil the defendants are present in the courtroom.
THU PRESIDENT: Let the notation be made.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Your Honor please, before the cross examination begins, may I address myself to the Court about inquiries which the Court made to me yesterday. Now Exhibit No. 592 is NG-2221. I have English copies for all members of the bench. How Exhibit No. 576, which is marked for identification only, was NG-1884. That was an affidavit of Hans Gramm. Later Gramm took the stand but the record will show we withdrew the affidavit, which was only identified and not introduced. And Exhibit No. 560, the Court was Without copies, that is NG-1547, the affidavit of Otto Ankenorand, and I furnish the English copies to the Beach, that is also 2221.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit No. 560 has been received, has it not?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: It had been received, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: No. 592, was that received?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: No. 592 was received, yes, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is No. 592 No. 2221?
MR LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor. Both of those had been distributed, but apparently the copies did not get to the Bench.
I think that disposes of all matters in which the Court made inquires.
MR. KING: Your honor, before the cross examination of this witness begins, I have been informed that he has a correction or two to make in the testimony which he gave yesterday.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well.
MR KING: If that is true and my understanding is correct I ask that he be given an opportunity at this time to say whatever he wishes in supplementing his testimony of yesterday.
WOLFGANG ROTTNER - continued.
DIRECT EXAMINATION - Continued.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness may make his corrections at this time. Mr. Witness, do you understand if you desire to make some corrections in your former testimony, you are at liberty to do so now, if you desire.
THE WITNESS: Yes, concerning the Landsberger affair, I said yesterday that it was a transfer from Mrs. Landsberger to nor daughter later; it was not her daughter to whom the property was transferred. I made a mistake there, because I was in a hurry. The Meder woman was not her daughter but she was a daughter of an electrician in Nurnberg, not her daughter, of the famous Landsberger, and the register showed it was transferred to the Secret account of the Gestapo. The former owners did not get that money; that is to say, I don't want to say so definitely, but this matter was simply transfer to that special account of the Gestapo, and the designation -- the name of the owner appeared in the account. The rectifications which were made in the reel estate register were only a matter of form, of course.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there my other comment to make?
THE WITNESS: No, there is nothing else.
DR. HAENSEL: Dr Haensel for the defendant Gunther Joel. I shall now begin with any cross examination, please.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Witness, you have done a great deal of work with your assistants on a chart which you have produced here, and commenting on these charts, will you please tell us why you made that compilation?
A. Mr. Einstein asked me to compile those charts.
MR. KING: Just a moment please. I don't think that question is relevant here whatsoever, why he made the compilation.
THE PRESIDENT: Objection overruled.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. When you compiled the chart, aid you know from what point of view the compilation would be?
A. No. Mr Einstein simply told me he needed this chart and he wanted to know how many of those properties were transferred to Holz. He wanted to know how much real estate was taken away from the original owners. I told him that I compiled these drafts, and I then did tell him that I would be absolutely certain I would not be able to compile all those cases because I just cannot land all of then, but I would just do my best.
Q. Did you realize at the time that the compilation would be used in connection with Gunther Joel?
A. No, I did not know that. All I know was that this compilation was needed for a trial here.
Q. Do you know Gunther Joel?
A. No, a don't know Gunther Joel.
A. When one looks at this compilation one sees unless I am wrong that one has to distinguish between three important dates.