I know that from memorandas of clients that had been abused, especially in Oranienburg and other camps early in 1933 and I kept those memorandas in my safe. But here the guilty persons were given severe punishments in the case of Hoffmann it was 30 years. Joel said that was unheard of, he should have been sentenced to death. That was what he wanted. On the 30th of June, 1934, in the course of the Roehm Affair a number of people were dealt with. One of them was Hoffmann. Upon personal order by Goering, he was taken out of the prison. After that he had been killed, shot. Immediately after he had been shot, Joel again in the same definite manner in his department objected that this man whom he would have liked to see sentenced to death was now dealt with quietly. He didn't agree with that either, that is to say, he was in favor of a legal procedure.
Q Did he come and speak plainly about these matters, or was he very reticent?
A Joel, as myself, is impulsive. He says what he thinks, and he uses very definite terms.
Q Only in speaking to you, or to others too?
A I might have talked to Joel at home or in tavers or restaurants, in greater circles, but he never made any secrets about his thoughts, but he spoke very plainly about what he was thinking.
Q And from these statements and these matters which you heard from him, could you tell us your impressions whether he had aided many people against the Gestapo and got them out? Or was it an exception?
A I am not only convinced but I happen to know from my colleagues, whenever they were confronted with difficulties like that they went to Joel and he helped them. I knew a number of persons whom he helped.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
I happen to know 20 or 30 persons, even more.
Q Now, you are a jurist, as we are, and you know that to decide the question of a punishable membership, it is necessary to know the criminal aims of an organization. What is your impression of the knowledge of Joel and the approval on the part of Joel on the aims of the SD, as much as you know about it?
A You want an expert opinion?
A No, just as a witness, what your impression was, knowing the person of Joel at the time?
A In my opinion, Joel could not have agreed with the aims such as they have been discovered later. One can see that from the case of Hoffmann. Hoffmann was an SS leader and other cases proved that, too, where he acted against higher SS leaders. If he had agreed with these methods, he would have had no reason to do anything against it.
Q Did he interfere for Jewish colleagues, Jewish lawyers? Did he say anything about the pogrom of 1938, in anything of a judicial nature, from which you could have guessed his attitude?
A That pogrom of 1938, the so-called Crystal Week-there it could be seen for the first time in public that there was a planned incitement. Events up to that time had been of minor nature. That affair, of course, caused a great deal of commotion. I myself had conducted a great number of negotiations, because the Jews on top of it had to pay for the damage, although it hadn't been their fault. Very large amounts had been charged the widow of the painter Liebermann, a widow of 86 years. I conducted negotiations for her. She was supposed to pay 350,000 Marks because the SA had broken windows on the Kurfuertstendamm.
Q What did Joel say?
A Joel tried to institute proceedings against these people who had broken the peaces and talked to me about it. I also spoke to him about the case of Liebermann in which I was greatly interested, because I was a friend of the old lady and he said the same things I had said.
Q Was that a reason that he became popular with the higher SS leaders; or, was it different?
A I can hardly answer that question because I don't know.
Q You didn't know these gentlemen?
A I didn't know these gentlemen.
Q Perhaps you know other gentlemen with whom Joel was in contact. Applying that principle, "tell me with whom you congregate, and I will tell you who you are". Who belonged to that circle -- with whom did you see him?
A It probably wouldn't be right with whom I saw him, but my friends, those of my friends who knew him discussed it very frequently with me. We did not meet frequently in large groups but in order to mention one individual I spoke about Joel to my friend Dr. Langben, who was executed; he had been a lawyer in Berlin as I was, and he gave me the same impressions that I also had. He expressed the same opinion that I had. I also discussed Joel with the former Under-Secretary Blank -- I believe he was also hanged in connection with the 20th July 1944. During the first year of the war, I worked in the High Command of the Armed Forces, in the office which was under General Thomas. General Thomas at that time, and knew that, but it has become known later, had already made an attempt to remove the regime as far back as in 1938, and that office was a considerable coll of resistance. That was the reason why Speer was put in his place later. He was first in disfavor, and in the course of actions of July, 1944, was brought into a concentration camp and was freed only after the armistice.
Q Did he happen to know Joel?
A This General Thomas in whose office also Blank was a frequent visitor, called me frequently and asked where I knew people who were reliable and proper, and I told him that at that time there was in the Ministry of Justice -- it must have been in 1942 -- there was Ministerialrat Joel and he immediately said: "Yes, that is also my view of Joel."
Q Do you remember my former associate Etscheid; and what became of him?
A Lawyer Etscheid and his wife, who was also a lawyer, I knew very well. We were good friends. Etscheid like me was a person who never made any secret of his opinion and spoke very openly. I am sure that I, too, would have had bad experiences in the course of the actions of the 20th July, 1944, had I not been abroad with the Armed Forces.
Q And Joel and Etscheid?
A Etscheid; Langbeem, Wirmer, Roothe, my partner and many others of my colleagues in Berlin had the custom of speaking frankly and I spoke about Joel to Etscheid occasionally, that is to say I knew that also Etscheid considered Joel his contact man in the Ministry of Justice; to whom he could always go for help. Etscheid died in a concentration camp; I don't know whether it was sentence or whether he was killed; at any rate, he is dead.
Q Tell me something about Donani who is frequently mentioned in connection with the Ministry?
A Donani was Reichagerichtsrat, Reich Supreme Court Counselor, and had been the personal referent of Minister Guertner before. I knew him; I know that he was in good relations with Joel; he also was executed in the course of the 20th July.
Q Do you consider that those friendly relations would have been possible if Joel had agreed to the aims of the SD?
A I should not think so. Those men certainly knew that Joel in spite of the rank in the SD, in spite of his membership in the party, that Joel was on their side.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you. That is all.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there any other direct examination? There being none, you may cross examine.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. KING:Were it not for the fact that the cross examination will be very short, I would ask the witness if he would care to rest before we go farther; but, I only have two or three questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Is the witness ready to proceed?
A I thank you. Yes, indeed.
BY MR. KING:
Q Just one, possibly two questions concerning the case Hoffman about which you have testified. Now, as I understand it, the man Hoffman was sentenced to fifteen years in the penitentiary as a result of Joel's investigations and, according to your testimony, his efforts.
A Yes.
Q Now, then; while he was in the penitentiary the Roehm putsch occurred; is that right?
A Yes, yes.
Q And that was on June 30th, 1934?
A Yes.
Q And at which time Hoffmann, who was in the penitentiary, was killed in the Roehm putsch. Can you tell me why this man who was serving a sentence in the penitentiary happened to be killed in this putsch? Was he turned over to the SA people by the prison authorities?
A Hoffmann was -- I don't know whether on the basis of a legal sentence, was in the Hoabit investigation prison.
Q Yes.
AAnd by a telephone call -- I don't know whether the phone call came from Goering himself, but at least from the office of the Prime Minister, and the request was made to have him released. They called them up, "give us this man Hoffmann", and Hoffmann on the same day in Lichterfelde, where all the executions took place, was shot dead by one of the commands that were carrying out these executions. The prosecutor probably from the files will see that in the Reichtag's speech made by the Reichs Chancellor, where it said "at that moment I was the supreme law, of the German people". Not only mention was made of the revolting SA leaders, but that on that occasion several other cases were dealt with; the case of Hoffmann was one of these other cases.
I was interested, if I may still say that, therefore, I was interested in that case Hoffmann because his wife was a school mate of my wife, and even later by way of the family I obtained information about that case. That is why I remember that case so well.
Q Did you over discuss with Joel the reasons as to why this man was released from the penitentiary sentence so that he could be shot in the Roehm Putsch? Did Joel ever discuss that with you?
A Yes, very definitely, about that demand to have him released that it was absolutely wrong, and I remember that so well because Herr Joel himself had been in favor of having that man sentenced to death because considerable atrocities had been committed in camp Bredow, and still afterwards he said "since he has received a sentence of only fifteen years by the court, it was absolutely unheard of that he was killed in that way." I not only spoke to Joel about it but also with his assistant and colleague, a Mr. von Haacke, who is a Ministerialrat now. He happened to be with him in the general public prosecution and they worked together in the same room, and he made the same remarks that Joel made.
Q Do you recall who the SA leaders called in order to have Hoffmann released to be executed?
A That I could no longer say. The SS leaders were not the ones who called for his release, at least not according to my knowledge. It was the office of the Prime Minister Goering, either Goering himself that made that request or some one from his office, and that request came through the Ministry of Justice that he had to be released; and he was released and shot.
A I assume the official on duty -- the official of the higher level who was on duty that day.
Q Well now, you are an old employee of the Ministry of Justice. You know the organizational set-up; who would have been the -- what office, what office would have been the logical office to make this release?
A There must be a misunderstanding, Mr. Prosecutor. I was never; I never worked in the Ministry of Justice. I studied in my training with the courts; I passed the examination and immediately thereafter I became an attorney; and particularly because not being a party member, as a civil service employee not being a member of the party, I would not have had any chance at all in a civil service career to achieve any higher position. When I was appointed assessor, on the very day when I was informed that I had passed my examination successfully, when I received my certificate, I requested to be released from the civil service. I was never in the Ministry therefore.
Q Can you answer my question notwithstanding that; if you know?
A Unfortunately, that is not possible. I know there was a duty office that is to say an official on duty.
Q What department would that have been in; would you say, if you know?
A That could only have been in the department for penal law, which had to handle the sphere under which that crime would have come; the department under Ministerial-director Crohne probably.
Q Did Joel over take any action against this request for the release of this SA man Hoffmann? You said he was excited about it and talked to you about it. Did he ever take any other than that so far as you know?
A The conversation which I reported did not take place on the 30th of June. I personally preferred during those five days not to be in Berlin. My conversation with Joel and von Haacke may have taken place on the 4th or 5th of July, 1934, and on that occasion there was some excitement; that case was discussed and both Joel and Haacke spoke very strongly against the fact that this mam had been dragged out and shot.
Mr. Prosecutor, therefore, I am not in a position to evaluate whether Joel before that execution took place had any idea of that matter. All I know is that he, von Haacke and attorney Roethe stated our opinion that we were against these executions which were just used as an opportunity to do away with a personal enemy, and I know that for weeks and months he has tried to institute proceedings.
Q You misunderstood me. Aside from telling you that he was against crime, I ask you whether he did anything about it so far as you know after the execution occurred. Now, if you don't know of any particular steps that he took, I don't expect you to answer, of course, but I thought perhaps since you know him so well that you may have noted some action he took personally.
A I knew that in the Ministry frequently, time and again, he tried to succeed with Freisler and other officials to achieve that regular proceedings should be carried out against those who had committed these illegal executions. Especially mention was made about executions in Breslau and executions of leading Catholics in Berlin. Those had been the leaders of the Catholic Action Katholische Aktion, and had been shot. And these people, particularly on the basis of their entire attitude could not possibly have had anything to do with the Roehm putsch; that was quite out of the question. Against these murderershe tried to institute proceedings. In the end, because of a statement made by Hitler, he failed to bring that about.
Q So the answer to my question is no, you did not hear of any specific action he took in connection with that after the execution, is that right?
A No.
Q You said that Freisler came from Kassel and Freisler was responsible for bringing Joel into the Ministry, is that your statement in that connection?
A That must have been right that he came together with those people from Kassel. There were several of them, not only he.
Q Yes. Now, it is quite conceivable to you, is it not that when Freisler brought Joel to Berlin he thought Joel was a pretty good National Socialist, otherwise he wouldn't have brought him, is that right?
A I can imagine that Freisler considered him a good National Socialist.
Q Now, I believe you stated in your affidavit that when Joel was promoted to a new position in Hamm you lost track of him, is that right, or at least you didn't have the close connection you had while he was in Berlin?
A No, that goes a little further, I believe I said that because I went into the Army I lost track. On the 4th of May 1943 I left Berlin and since that time I have not been in Berlin at all, except brief stays on leave.
Q Different reasons but the same result, you didn't have contact with him after that. Then you didn't know about his subsequent promotion in the SS after he reached Hamm, did you?
A No, I know nothing about that. I didn't see him again since May 1943.
Q Now did you ever see - I think you said you never say Joel in a SD uniform, did you ever see him in an SS uniform?
A No, I have said before, that I considered it quite impossible that I ever saw him. I considered it out of the question that I ever saw him in an SD uniform but I said it was possible I may have seen him once in a uniform.
At any rate of the hundreds of times when I saw him it was always in civilian clothes.
Q Yes, one moment. We have no further questions.
BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q Witness, may I ask you a few questions briefly.
It would be interesting if you can tell us in connection with the case of the old Jewish lady, I think you said over eighty years old, who was required to pay for the damage which the SA had done. Can you tell us by what government authority or purported authority she was required to make such payments?
A Yes, your Honor, may I interpolate, she was the widow of the well known Jewish Artist, Max Liebermann, who is very famous all over the world. I know the case very well because it was not only Frau Liebermann, but a large number of Jews who were in the same situation, and many of them came to me and asked me to negotiate for them. This is the way it happened; the Reich Propoganda Minister, some official of the Ministry, I do not happen to know who it was, called the Elders of the Jewish Community of Berlin and told them that the Jewish Community by imposing a levy on their members had to make good that damage, the total damage was so and so many marks, I don't know how much it was altogether and now the Council of Elders, that is to say, the administrative officials of the Jewish community were forced to take their income and lists of income and try to establish a percentage of the levy which the individual Jewish person had to pay and in that connection there were great difficulties because many of these people had lot a great deal already through Reich Flight Tax and through confiscation and so on. I remember the entire amount was tremendous and if one went to the Elders of the Jewish community one could achieve that reductions were made. For instance, in this case, Liebermann, but I can't remember the amount, - I think I brought it down to 280,000 marks. The son-in-law, Geheimrat Dr. Kurt Ritzier, who is a Professor at the University of Chicago is a good personal friend of mine, and he asked me before he went to the States, to assist the old lady for the rest of her life.
In the end, although we frequently succeeded in her not being taken away, - she was supposed to go to Theresienstadt or some place of that sort, - finally at the age of 86, she was still to be taken away, but she met a merciful death, she died on the staircase of her house and it could not be found out whether it was a stroke or due to poison.
Q That was after she was in the process of being transported?
A Yes, your Honor, they always wanted to got her out of the apartment and transport her. On the outside, since officially I was not permitted to represent her as a lawyer, she used a legal adviser, and that was also difficult because the adviser changed every four weeks, and a number of the legal advisers were former Jewish attorneys and their number was reduced by having them transported to the East, and then the Jewish people always had to go to their successors, and I worked with many of these legal advisers and it was difficult because they always wore the Star of David on their coats and it was difficult for them to get to see me because they were forbid to go to the Wilhelmstrasse, and they could not go there with the Star and they were forbid to go without it. In other words, together with the legal advisers, we tried by getting certificates from the medical authorities and medical opinions, and by various ways we succeeded for a while, that she was not transported and although it was said that nothing much would have happened if she would have gone there and it wouldn't have been too bad, but we didn't want to risk it and finally they came for her and on they stairway while they waited to take her out, she dropped dead.
Q Briefly then, if I understand you, the demand for payment for the damage was accomplished through the Ministry of Propaganda. Would that have been with the aid of the police?
A Yes.
Q Thank you.
A Yes, frequently things like that occurred, for instance when a Jew wanted to emigrate, I had much to do with it. He had to pay the Reichs Escape Tax, that was so and so much percent of his property and then a large amount was taken away from him by assessing his property very high. After all of that was done and the day he went to the Passport office in order to get his clearance, his passport, and get his visae then he was told that now he still had to go to the Notary, Dr. Stage, and had to deposit a voluntary fee to promote the emigration of the Jews, and that is where he paid the balance, and then left with his personal satchel, with his little valise. That is about how it happened, it was not a definite legal matter, but one just didn't get the clearance unless one had paid for damage and if one didn't pay for the damage one had difficulties and if one didn't pay the voluntary fee for the passport-well one just had to do it.
Q There have been some other matters mentioned we have not apparently heard about, you spoke about a systematic shooting of Catholic Leaders in Berlin, could you tell us briefly a little about what that matter was?
A For a long time I was, although I am not a Catholic myself, very friendly with these people, Dr. Moesbach, Ministerialrat Miesen, and that is all before 1933, and they on the 30th of June had already been for more than nine months in the concentration camp. Fortunately they were not in the first wave of executions, but because we who understood anything about these matters, saw clearly that this 30th of June 1934 from the very beginning was designed to remove certain undersirable SA leaders and to remove at the same time other undesirable people, but I do remember quite well the name of a Mr. Von Klausner, who was, I believe, a Ministerialrat in the Reich Traffic Ministry, that was the Reich Transport Ministry, Eltz von Ruebenach was the Minister at the time, I believe, and he came to ask why, but the answer was just that he was dead, Schleicher was shot at that time, and Schultz also is supposed to have been shot but he wasn't. At any rate the 30th of June 1934 was used as an opportunity to remove quite a number of undesirable personalities.
I have said already, your Honor, that from the early morning of the 30th of June until the 4th of July I was on an automobile trip without any destination.
Q I think we can make this more brief. Is it correct at that time what I think you called the Leaders of a Catholic Resistance movement were shot in connection with the other atrocities. I just want to know in a few words.
A. They were certainly undersirable. They were unpopular. Where they had been the leaders of a resistance movement, that I don't know. Certainly they were opponents of National Socialism.
THE PRESIDENT: And do you know anything about the extent to which these Catholic leaders were shot as undesirables, in Berlin? I don't want the names. Was it extensive in numbers, or were there only a few of them?
WITNESS: No, they may have been two, three, four, or five -they got away for the most part. They were no longer shot because that was carried out only by surprise. Two days later there was order again, and they were no longer removed.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand.
BY DR. HAENSEL:
Q. Witness, only a very few questions. First, I should like to continue about the 30th of June. I understood you correctly, didn't I,and we also know, - that subsequent to the 30th of June, the execution of Roehm, a number of other people - who certainly were no supporters of Roehm were shot. Did I understand you correctly, that it was just Joel who instigated a number of proceedings, prosecutions, about these matters?
A. I believe I said that Joel, whenever anything happened which was not according to statutory law and law-enforced, and not according to prescribed rules of procedure, that he intervened always -- always whatever it was; and it was quite clear that he did not agree - it was made quite clear that he did not agree with the executions and tried to do something about it.
Q. I only want to make it clear why these cases, these prosecutions, were not carried out; and I would like to refresh your memory. You mentioned before some intervention on the part of the Reich Chancellor, that is, Hitler. Do you still remember that at that time on the conclusion of these matters of the 30th of June, a law was published, a formal Reich law -- that amnesty law-- do you still remember that?
A. That may be - that may be - but for me it was -
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't it in evidence? We remember it.
Q. (By Dr. Haensel) Then, in order to refresh our knowledge of the laws: You discussed the case Liebermann before, The Court wanted to know what authority it was that demanded these payments for damage do you still remember the decree for the re-establishment of the streets' order.
A. I don't think so; I don't think so.
Q. I just wanted to ask you for the legal basis for these matters. There was a law, a decree, passed -- mention was made here, in the Propaganda Ministry. Is there anything that may not be misunderstood? Did the Propaganda Ministry have anything to do with that decree?
A. Who issued that decree, I could not say. I only happen to know that the Government Councillor or Administrative Officials of the Jewish Community in Berlin, on Oranienburg Street, told me "I have to get that money from Mrs. Liebermann because the Reich Ministry of Propaganda has made me responsible to do that." I was not even interested at that time in the legal basis. It just had to be done.
Q. To return to the Hoffmann case. Did you have the definite impression that Joel had anything to do directly with the release of Hoffmann, or was he just angry about it?
A. Joel could not possible have anything to do with the release of Hoffmann because his words were, "I would never have released him." So in my opinion the time he heard about it was when Hoffmann was already dead.
Q. And made that statement?
A. And made that statement that he would not have released him.
DR. HAENSEL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused.
(The witness was excused)
THE PRESIDENT: Are there other matters to be taken up this afternoon?
DR. KUBUSCHOK (for defendant Schlegelber); Some time ago I submitted a supplement document book, the translation of which has not been finished. It consists mainly of excerpts from scientific writings. I could submit it for identification not.
THE PRESIDENT: I think that might save a little time if you could do that. The English is not ready?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The English is not ready your Honor, although some of the exhibits are in English. That is, they are English and American literature.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification. He will pass on it later.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: I should like to submit -- before I do that I should like to submit Schlegelberger No. 65, for which Exhibit 35 -30 -- was reserved.
THE PRESIDENT: Document 65, Exhibit 30. Are you prepared to offer that now?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, your Honor, I can offer it now. It was a document which I had to submit to the prosecution. I didn't do it at the time -
THE PRESIDENT: Are you ready now?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, your Honor, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The Exhibit will be received.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Furthermore, I offer as Exhibit No. 128, Schlegelberger Document 164. That is an excerpt from the transcript of the IMT.
THE PRESIDENT: We will receive it for more convenient use. However, that is only offered for identification at this time, is that right?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Yes, it is offered only for identification, your Honor. All documents which I will mention now will be for identification only.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Supplement Volume II. I beg your pardon. That is a loose document. That is not in any book.
The following documents will be in Supplement II, Document Book II Supplement.
The next document, Schlegelberger 132, I am offering as Exhibit 129.
THE PRESIDENT: Marked for identification.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Schlegelberger 133, as Exhibit 130.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be marked for identification. These are in Supplement Book II. All of them?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: All in Book II Supplement, your Honor, yes.
Schlegelberger 135, as Exhibit 131.
THE PRESIDENT: Let it be so marked.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: 136 as Exhibit 132.
THE PRESIDENT: These will all be marked. I will not mention it each time. Marked for identification.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Document 137 as Exhibit 133.
Document 140 as exhibit 134.
Schlegelberger 141 as Exhibit 135.
Schlegelberger 142 as Exhibit 136.
Schlegelberger 143 as Exhibit 137.
Schlegelberger 144 as Exhibit 138.
Schlegelberger 145 as Exhibit 139.
Schlegelberger 146 as Exhibit 140.
Schlegelberger 147 as Exhibit 141.
Schlegelberger 148 as Exhibit 142.
Schlegelberger 149 as Exhibit 143.
Schlegelberger 150 as Exhibit 144.
Schlegelberger 151 as Exhibit 145.
Schlegelberger 152 as Exhibit 146.
Schlegelberger 153 as Exhibit 147.
Schlegelberger 154 as Exhibit 148.
Schlegelberger 155 as Exhibit 149.
Schlegelberger 156 as Exhibit 150.
Schlegelberger 157 as Exhibit 151.
Schlegelberger 158 as Exhibit 152.
Schlegelberger 159 as Exhibit 153.
Schlegelberger 160 as Exhibit 154.
Schlegelberger 161, as Exhibit 155.
Schlegelberger 162, as Exhibit 157.
On the 6th of October I shall submitt four more documents for Schlegelberger, and probably two documents for von Ammon, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: You mean the 13th, don't you?
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The 13th, yes, Your Honor, the 13th.
THE PRESIDENT: You may present them then.
Each of these exhibits which are to be marked for identification, from 128 to 157, both inclusive, will be marked and may be offered later.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Mr. President, may I retain document 142, exhibit 136, a little longer? Because I am just informed that my exhibit is in the English language, although it is an excerpt from a book in the German language. I had already put the translation into the document, but I really should submit it in the German text. Therefore, I would like to offer it again on the 13th of October in order to submit the original text.
THE PRESIDENT: You may do so.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: Thank you.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, I also have a few documents which I can offer today only for identification, because I do not have the English translations available.
First, Supplement Volume III, Dr. Rothenberger.
THE PRESIDENT: How many documents do you have?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Three, four, about ten documents, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: I regret that I haven't enough paper to cover that many documents.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Nine documents altogether.
THE PRESIDENT: I will borrow some. Thank you.
You may proceed.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: First, supplement volume III. I have already mentioned a collection of.
material of the Hanseatic District Court of Appeal.
This is Rothenberger supplement volume III.
I had already offered that collection of material to be identified as Exhibit No. 78.
THE PRESIDENT: I am a little behind. You are about to identify documents in Rothenberger supplement volume III, is that correct?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Supplement book III, yes. I also have documents to offer from supplement II, but since I have already submitted a document from volume III, supplement several days ago -- that is, that collection of material -- I shall first refer to volume III supplement. The document which I have mentioned was given a number a few days age, Exhibit 78 for identification.
The next document offered is Exhibit 78-A, which is connected with the document previously mentioned, because it certifies that that collection of material is a file from the District Court of Appeals in Hamburg. It is an affidavit by the Justice Inspector, von Thaden, of Hamburg, who certifies that that collection of material is a file of the District Court of Appeal at Hamburg with the title, "Right to Protective Custody", and a certified note.
I offer that document and ask that it be marked for identification as 78-A.
THE PRESIDENT: The document again please?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Exhibit 78-A, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Is there a document number to that?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: There is no document number on it otherwise.
THE PRESIDENT: That is in supplement volume III?
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: Supplement volume III, Your Honor.
In the same supplement volume there is an original letter of the then District Court of Appeal President Dr, Rothenberger to Reich Ni nister of Justice Dr. Guertner concerning complaints against protective custody measures of the SS.