And "this matter" refers to the general question of the administration of penal law.
DR. BREIGER: Concerning the document which has just been submitted to the Tribunal, 1103, I want to be permitted to print out an essential mistake in the translation. It has just been pointed out to me that repeatedly the titles in the document, "Bezirksreferent" and "Sachreferent", have been "translated with the technical term "subdepartment chief". That would not serve to clarify the matter. "Bezirksreferent", according to the meaning of the term "Bezirk", "district", would indicate that the man has to deal with matters in a certain geographic district. I could not say now what extent it had, but I think that is irrelevant for the time being. I am only interested in pointing out that there is a geographic term covered here. The first term "Bezirksreferent", is somewhat contrary to the other term, "Sachreferent", which comes from the term "Sache", a thing, matter. I should gather that it means a field of duties which has been divided among a number of people or a number of specialists, according to the matters to be dealt with.
May I ask to take that into consideration in translation? I should not like to stick to a definite translation at the time, but I only want to say that this should be taken into consideration.
MR. KING: We wish to thank Dr. Brieger for the interesting lecture on the semantics of this word, and we will call the Translation Department's attention to it so that in the future we can arrive at a more accurate translation of the word.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I should like to clarify a slight misunderstanding. The Prosecutor pointed out the last sentence of the last paragraph of Document 1103 and said that the Staatssekretair, the Undersecretary, was at that time Schlegelberger, the defendant Schkegelberger. It is correct, that Schlegelberger was Staatssekretaer, Undersecretary, but in addition to that, for penal matters Undersecretary Freisler was competent. The document reproduces a speech made by Freisler. From the entire content it can be seen that the Undersecretary mentioned here, who was to speak to the general prosecutors, that was Freisler's task, that that could only have been Freisler.
MR. KING: Dr. Kuboschok and the Court will notice on Page 2 of the document we have reference to State Secretary Dr. Freisler and State Secretary Dr. Schlegelberger. I don't know by what guiding light Dr. Kuboschok comes to the conclusion that the speech was actually made by Freisler. Perhaps he knows of the speech. We don't now of it, and since "State Secretary" generally at this period, any way, is generally assumed to be Dr. Schlegelberger, the interference on my part was quite natural.
However, if Dr. Kuboschok has any further word on it, we would be glad to hear it.
DR. KUBOSCHOK: If in this document in any place only the word "Staatssekretaer" "Undersecretary" is used then it refers to Freisler. I want to refer to the following? The first line of the document: "the Staatssekretaer called the following gentlemen to see him." Then after they are listed the sentence follows, Staatssekretaer Dr. Freisler made the following statement to the gentlemen present. Further down, the paragraph before last: also the Staatssekretaer asked to refrain from passing on directives which he, or Dr. Schlegelberger -there again you see clearly the designation "Staatssekretaer" to the person of Freisler.
MR. KING: The explanation was full and complete, but I still don't see the distinction. However, it is not a point that we certainly want to argue about any further here, and if Dr. Kuboschok is convinced that it was Dr. Freisler who made the speech, I presume that he will later refer to it and perhaps offer some proff. In the meantime may I offer the Document NG-1103 as Exhibit 464.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document which will become, when received in evidence, Exhibit 465, is Document NG 1253, Document NG 1253 consists of an affidavit of an attorney who witnessed a trial in which three defendants were tried before the defendant Cuhorst in Stuttgart. The attorney who is the affiant in an affidavit is Wizigmann, and the case is an absolutely unpronouncable name which I am going to spell. P-o-t-s-c-h-i-v-a-l-s-c-h-e-k.
The rest of the document consists of the indictment in this case, in which one of the co-defendants, Skowron, was sentenced to death. It is the defendant Skowron in whom we are particularly interested.
I wish to read the portion of Wizigmann's affidavit beginning at the first full paragraph from the bottom of the page in the English with this sentence: "The first crime was committed on 26 July 1942, that is t to say at a time when SKOWRON was under 18 years of age the last committed on 24 January 1943. It could be seen from the indictment that several crimes were always committed within a period of a few days, as, for instance 6 crimes early in November, 3 crimes early in December 1942, and 3 at the end of January 1943, The first crime on 26 July 1942 was a theft from a countryman, who had taken considerable amounts from him at cards, and whom he therefore robbed of 190.-Marks.
"The other crimes start in October 1942. In most cases, the defendant stole mainly food stuffs, a part of which he immediately consumed. On a couple of occasions he took shoes, once a bicycle and once tools. Nearly all the stolen items were returned. Once only, 270.-Reichsmark were stolen, and of this money 155.- Reichsmarks were used, so that together with the theft from his comrade, a total of 345.- Reichsmarks was involved. As the remainder of the stolen items had almost all been taken from the Pole, there was a further amount of approximately 100.- Reichsmarks included. It should have been apparent, that the criminal was interest mainly in food-stuffs and simple clothing. The Special Court acted on the theory that 24 separate crimes had been committed, whereas in view of the fact that the thefts occurred within a very short period of time, often several in one night, they should have been regarded as a continued action.
Under normal circumstances, in a series of cases the crime of the defendant would have been considered as petty larceny for personal use.
"The fact that the defendant was sentenced to death under the presidency of CUHORST was incomprehensible and inhuman, taking into consideration his youth and past clear record and the fact that the damage done was very limited. The trial opened at about 10 O'clock and, as far as I can recall, ended shortly after 12 o'clock. With the wealth of evidence available, the trial could never have been carried out in such a short time under a conscientious president.
"During the trial, it became apparent that the President CUHORST was antagonistic towards foreigners, especially of Polish Nationality, and in stating his reasons for the sentence used the following expression with regard to the Pole "must be eradicated."
Then we would like to read a portion of the affidavit which appears on Page 3, beginning in the English six lines down with "in conclusion."
"In conclusion, I would like to make the further remarks that, considering the amount of evidence, the trial was conducted at great speed, which showed clearly CUHORST's animosity towards foreigners, especially of Polish Nationality, and that the death sentence should . never have been pronounced in view of the boyish appearance of the defendant, his mouth and past clear record. The manner in which the trial was conducted gave the impression that CUHORST did not value human life, as a judge who is conscious of his responsibilities, or, for that matter, a person with any feeling should.
Whereas another Judge would have shown sympathy when pronouncing the death sentence, CUHORST was merciless. SKOWRON was executed."
The remaining part of the document is the indictment in the case. The opinion in that case we do not have.
We offer the document NG 1253 as Exhibit 465.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DR. BRIEGER: I should like to refer for one moment to the document just submitted by the Prosecution. From the affidavit by Wizigmann, it can not be seen that he put the indictment at the disposal of the Prosecution. On the other hand, it cannot be seen from the certificate attached by Dr. Rolf Schneider that this is a captured document. In other words, it is not shown in what manner the document came into the possession of the Prosecution.
As for the indictment itself, I have to say: it is not the original indictment because the document does not have the signature in ink of the chief prosecutor, Link. The signature is affixed only by typewriter. Accordingly, as is my duty, I dispute that this is the original copy of the indictment and in the document itself I find that after page 4 the paginations on pages 4, 5, 6, then again on 3, have possibly been changed. On pages 10, 11, 12, and so forth from there on the paginations can no longer be seen at all up to page 16, where they are to be seen again. That is what causes me to contest the completeness of this document, and it seems to be all the more important to me because, if pages are missing, they must contain facts which were essential for the decision of the defendant Cuhorst, and such facts may possibly have been taken into consideration also in the sentence.
MR. KING: The document concerning which Dr. Brieger has raised a question is a document mimeographed and circulated by some one connected with the court in Stuttgard, of which the defendant Cuhorst was president. Whether this was the document that was handed to the defendant Skowron or a copy of it, I don't know. It may have been a document that was later circulated, for perusal of various people in the immediate area of Stuttgart and perhaps even forwarded on to Berlin. However, the fact remains that it was produced by the Stuttgart court, someone connected with it. It is in the original German, and, while it may not be a captured document, it is a part of the record in this trial, which is clearly admissible under the rules under which this Court oper Court No. III, Case No. 3.ates.
The fact that the pagination is not clear all the way through is unfortunate. However, the sense of the indictment, as can be seen by reading in the English version, is clear. There do not seem to bo any omissions. The original document shows that there were 21 pages. The last page is page 21, and there arc exactly 21 pages here, so I think Dr. Brieger's suggestion that there may be something missing is not well taken.
It also should be called to the Court's attention that a great many of the records, nearly all of them in fact, of the Stuttgart court were destroyed by bombing and subsequent fire. That is why in many of these cases it is very difficult to produce the actual document that was used in the trial, if such there were.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask a question? Does the affidavit refer to the copy of the indictment at any point? I have not found it.
MR. KING: The affidavit does not refer to this particular copy of the indictment, but the affidavit does refer to the fact that there was an indictment, and certain things can be seen from reading the indictment, so one knows from the affidavit that there was an indictment filed, which the affiant in this affidavit had seen.
THE PRESIDENT: Would it be possible to have any better authentication by tomorrow morning, or is that time too short?
MR. KING: I doubt that it is, but we will see what we can do.
THE PRESIDENT: We'll bring it up again tomorrow morning. We'll recess at this time.
(Whereupon at 1625, 13 May 1947 the Tribunal recessed until 0930, 14 May 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstoetter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 14 May 1947, 0930-1630, Justice Carrington T. Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the courtroom will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.
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 please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of the defendant Engert, who is absent due to illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Engert has been excused temporarily at his own request. Let proper notation be made.
MR. KING: At the close of yesterday's session we were discussing the Document NG-1253 which had been offered as Exhibit 463. Objection was raised by Dr. Brieger to the effect that the indictment, which forms a part of this document, was, in his opinion, not the indictment served on the defendant, or, in fact, not officially distributed. We are not in a position to furnish more proof than we already have, with one exception: It is clear from the number in the upperright-hand corner of the document, the number, Roman numeral one, and then a slanting line followed by the number 10; it is clear from that that this indictment was drawn by the prosecutor Rimelin, who has appeared before this Court as a witness. It is well known, as Dr. Brieger himself could determine by consulting his client, that that was the number assigned to Rimelin and the one he always used in preparing his indictments. We also have learned, although I am not able to put the source of our information on the stand this morning, but we also have learned unofficially that this is probably the indictment, I mean, a copy of the indictment which was served on the defendant.
In any event, this indictment was a copy of the indictment which was sent to all prosecuting attorneys before the Stuttgart court, as was customary in every case. This particular copy Rimelin received, and we, in turn, got it from him. With that exception we have no further proof, but we think on the basis of what we said yesterday, plus the appearance of the original, that it is a document admissible as a part of a court record. The offer will now be made again. It might be of some convenience to the Court if the document, which we are about to hand up to the Secretary General, were before it for examination.
JUDGE BRAND: You got the document not from the affiant, but from another person?
MR. KING: That is correct; the document was obtained by us from Rimelin who was a prosecutor before the Stuttgart courts; in fact, Rimelin himself drew this indictment.
JUDGE BRAND: Of course I am not questioning the good faith of the integrity of your statement at all, but what is there to show, aside from your statement, that the indictment -- copy of which is here -- was received by the prosecutor or by any one else, or that it is the authentic copy of the original indictment? I haven't examined the affidavit of this unpronounceable affiant, but I understood from you that it does not incorporate by references the indictment at all.
MR. KING: No. The affiant in the affidavit is Witzigmann, who merely refers in his affidavit to the indictment in this case; he said the indictment would show certain things or did show certain things. From that we know only that there was an indictment. We do not know from that statement that this is the indictment to which he refers. When the witness Rimelin testified, he referred to this case, and he also made a remark at the time that there was an indictment in this case and some other comments on it.
JUDGE BRAND: But no one, other than yourself as an attorney, has identified this paper as being a copy of the indictment.
MR. KING: That is correct.
JUDGE BRAND: Of course the affidavit is admissible; of course, the affidavit part of the exhibit is admissible any how.
MR. KING: Yes. The only proof I have is what we have already offered, and there is, unfortunately, no official stamp on the document because it was a mimeographed copy circulated to various members of the Court.
THE PRESIDENT: We will not immediately rule on this matter; after the morning recess we will take it up again.
MR. KING: May I suggest then that the document retain its exhibit number?
THE PRESIDENT: My statement was that we will not rule upon the admissibility of this indictment at this time, but will rule on it immediately after the morning recess. We are prepared now, to say, of course, that the affidavit of this affiant will be admitted, and it is requested to have it admitted without the indictment.
MR. KING: In view of the fact that the affidavit is admissible in any event, may I suggest that the document, as it has been handed up, retain its Exhibit Number of 465?
May I ask if the Secretary General has sufficient copies of the Document NG-610 in English and German for distribution to the Court, and the translators and transcribers?
SECRETARY GENERAL: May I ask how many pages there are in this document, approximately?
MR. KING: Quite a bundle. I think time re are 28 pages in the document. May I suggest that the search continue, and I shall proceed.
SECRETARY GENERAL: I have sufficient copies.
MR. KING: You do? Alright.
JUDGE BRAND: I observe already that these are loose sheets.
MR. KING: That is correct.
JUDGE BRAND: And I do not think the Tribunal should have the menial task of fastening all of those exhibits together.
Who ever has the responsibility for binding them together in some way, I think, should do it.
MR. KING: I appreciate the fact that it imposes a considerable burden on the Court to do this. I do not think, however, that the fault lies with anyone except the Prosecution -- by the nature of things we have to distribute certain documents which cannot bo bound in books -- something should be worked out; I will try to see what can be done.
Document NG 610, which will be, when received in evidence, exhibit466, should be placed as the last document in the supplement 1. The document is offered for only one purpose, and it is far more bulky than the single purpose for which it is offered or should warrant. The document is concerned with the appointment of several individuals to the Ministry of Justice, promotions and appointments. One of those promotions and appointments is that of the defendant Klemm, and the material relating to him constitutes only a small part of the whole; however, here, again, is a case of a document which contains material that we want to offer, that we do not wish to offer in part, because of the possibility we might be accused of editing to fit our own purpose and needs. And, so, for that reason the document of 28 pages is offered at this time, when actually only three or four pages are of interest. We will not summarize further except to say that we are interested only in the portions relating to the defendant Klemm.
The document NG 610 is offered as exhibit 466.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: May I ask the Court and Defense Counsel to turn now to document book, supplement 3-A. The first document in document book 3-A is NG 291, which will, when offered, become exhibit 467. The document is unsigned, but it is a captured document. The original of which is now in Berlin, and it does refer to former members of the Reich Ministry of Justice, and, at least, among the present defendants, to Lautz. It is a document concerned with the treatment of treason and high treason cases by the local courts. We want to point out the instructions contained in this directive for treatment of prisoners who are being held under charges of treason or high treason. On page 2 of the document book, at the top of the page we find the statement that: "The defendant was to be kept in solitary confinement in a cell day and night."
And a little further down, as a matter of fact, the beginning of the second paragraph from the bottom of that page we find: "The defendant is to be excluded from common religious services."
A And, on page 3, at the beginning of the first full paragraph on that page in the English, it is to be noted that: "The defendant is to be excluded from common exercises in the fresh air and from common bathing."
Then, on page 4 of the English, in the middle of the page, opposite the number 8, we see that: "The selection of a defense counsel must be approved by the president of the competent division (Senat) of the People's Court." Followed by the statement: "Until this is granted, the attorneys have absolutely no defense rights and with regard to correspondence and personal contact with the accused they are subject to regulations set up in Nos. 6 and 7."
The document, in addition to the few sentences I have pointed out, is a directive to officials in the local courts for the treatment of prisoners and the conducting of the trial of people accused under the counts of treason and high treason.
We offer the document NG 291 as exhibit 467.
DR. GRUBE (for defendant Lautz): May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecutor has stated before that this document was to be used against the defendant Lautz. May I emphasize that this memorandum does not show who has issued it. This document does not show who has issued it. It is impossible to find the author or to establish who the author was nor the office. I believe for this reason the document cannot be considered complete. If it is to have probative value against any one of the defendants, then, at least, it should be seen who wrote this directive and issued it; therefore, I object to the submission of this document.
MR. KING: I think Dr. Grube misunderstood me. I did not say it was to be used against any particular defendant. I said that among the names mentioned in this document, of the present defendants, Lautz's name appeared.
JUDGE BRAND: Where is that, please?
MR. KING: On page 6, and 3 in the German under III, under Roman III. It states: "If the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court has passed a case on to an Attorney General" and so forth. That is the reference. Perhaps it is an overstatement to say that Lautz's name appears, although Lautz was, at the probable date of this document, the Chief Reich Prosecutor.
THE PRESIDENT: Has the document been examined by the Defense Counsel?
MR. KING: I believe it has, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: The document is purely admissible as a capture document. Whether it has particular application to the Lautz or not depends upon the reading and construction of the document.
I take it for granted from Dr. Grube's silence that he does not dispute the proposition that the defendant Lautz was, perhaps, the officer named -- the Chief Reich Prosecutor of the People's Court, at that time. February 21, 1940, to be more accurate.
DR. GRUBE: May it please the Tribunal, I do not deny that the defendant Lautz was the Chief Reich Prosecutor at the People's Court at that time. I only wanted to point out that it cannot be seen and that actually Lautz was not the author of that memorandum.
MR. KING: Excuse me, has the previous document been admitted in evidence?
THE PRESIDENT: Document NG-291 is admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: Thank you. The next document is NG-371, to be found beginning on page 8 of the English text and on 6 in the German, and will be, when received in evidence, Exhibit 468.
This document concerns the arrest, trial, and execution of the defendant Schmidt before the Special Court Nurnberg, in a trial presided over by the defendant Oeschey. On page 8 we find the statement that the defendant had been executed; beginning on page 9, an appeal for clemency by the attorney representing the defendant; beginning on page 11 the Indictment, which we will not read at this time. On page 14 we note that the presiding judge was Ocschey, and that is the beginning of the opinion verdict, and there follows, through page 18 inclusive, the opinion. We do not wish to read extensively from this, but would like to read a paragraph or two. On the bottom of page 16, in the English, opposite the number "3", we find the following statement:
"The defendant admits the theft of the fly-papers and cardboard boxes and asserts that the fly-papers had been surplus and the taking of cardboard boxes was permitted.
"This statement is nothing but a laughable subterfuge. The flypapers were the property of his employer and have now, in war-time, a much higher value than they had formerly. Just as little as he could lay hands on the property of his employer could the defendant take the cardboard cartons which were transport goods. Of this he was fully aware, for it is self-evident."
On page 11 in the English, which is near the end of the opinion, we would like to read the paragraph beginning:
"It is the task of the Administration of Justice to protect the people's community from this type of incorrigible anti-social, and dangerous major criminal. This can only be attained by destroying the defendant in order to be sure that he will not be a menace in the future. It does not matter in this respect that his latest crimes are of minor importance as compared with his previous ones; these offenses, too, prove that the defendant is past improvement.
For this reason, any measures of protection are else not in order. Towards such elements one must rather act with ruthless severity, particularly in the present war when it is a question of the existence of our nation and where our best men sacrifice their lives and health. The need for a just atonement also demands the extermination of the defendant."
The opinion is signed by Oeschey and two others.
We offer the case Schmidt as document NG-371 and Exhibit 468.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG-380, will be the Exhibit 469 when admitted in evidence. It is to be found in the English text beginning on page 20, and in the German on page 19.
This is a note dated 15 May 1944, which is signed by Lautz, and concerns the prosecution of offenses against the Reich or the army of occupation in the occupied territories. It can be seen from the contents of the document that it is particularly applicable, if not entirely so, to Belgium and Northern France. I would like to read a portion of it, beginning approximately in the middle of the note with the sentence:
"On the other hand, the cases in which I usually take over the prosecution are, as a rule, of such a serious nature that both factual conditions and intent as demanded by Article 91-b of the Penal Code are present and the death penalty is fitting."
The note goes on to refer in other respects to 91-b, but we will not read further from the document. It should be noted that on the second page of the document, page 21 in the English text, which refers to the note from which I have just read, it is initialed by the defendant Mettgenberg. It is also noted at the bottom of that page that a copy is to be routed to Mettgenberg, and the copy we are offering is apparently the one that went over his desk, at least his initials appear on the copy which we are offering the Court at this time as Exhibit 469.
THE PRESIDENT: Who is the author of the document?
MR. KING: The author of the document on page 20 is obviously Lautz.
THE PRESIDENT: I am thinking about page 21, where it states that it was submitted to the defendant Mettgenberg.
MR. KING: It is difficult to tell who is the author of that note.
THE PRESIDENT: I wonder whether the letter "M" indicated Mettgenberg?
MR. KING: That initial, that letter "M", may be the initial of the defendant Mettgenberg, but it is not characteristic of his usual initial. The one at the bottom of the page, which I believe is not clearly indicated on the mimeographed copy, is definitely that of Mettgenberg.
THE PRESIDENT: The fact that it is to be submitted to him would indicate that he was not the author of the document, would it not?
MR. KING: Yes, I think that is clear. No, we do not claim that the author of the second letter is Mettgenberg. It was either the defendant -- well, no, I am not prepared to say.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document is NG-431, and will be, when admitted in evidence, Exhibit 470. It is to be found beginning on page 23 of the English text, and on 21 of the German. This document is a situation report from the President cf the Court of Appeal in Danzig to Secretary of State, or former Secretary of State Schlegelberger. The second paragraph in the document we wish to read, in which the President of the Court of Appeal in reporting to Dr. Sphlegelberger, says the following:
"A close watch on the Polish population is still necessary. In the district of Neumark fourteen hostages had to be shot at the end of November 1941 because cf arson committed by Poles. At Seeheim, in the district of Nirsitz, a barn had been set on fire the night after a Pole had been evacuated and a Bessarabian-German installed. The Polish perpetrator was publicly executed by hanging upon the order of the Reichsfuehrer SS, while the local population, as a warming, was forced to march past the body."
III That's all of this document which we specifically call to the Court's attention at this time, and we therefore offer the Document NG-431 as Exhibit 470.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next Document, NG-432, begins on page 26 in the English, and 23 in the German, and will be, when received in evidence, Exhibit 471. It, also, is a situation report from the president of the Court of Appeals in Danzig to Dr. Schlegelberger. He call the Court' s attention to the paragraph beginning at the bottom of page 28 and extending on to the next page. We will read part of that.
"At the end of May a Pole escaped from a prison run by the Gestapo, at Bromberg. When being seized he stabbed the official arresting him and hurt him considerably, whereupon the official shot him in self-defense. In retaliation, the Gestapo hanged ten Poles - relatives of the offender and five more persons who had been acquitted in the Drzewiecki case dealt with in the Bromberg Special Court. The Chief of the Chief Office of the State prison Bfomberg, when asked, declared expressly that the hanging of the five acquitted persons did not mean a disapproval of the Special Court's sentences, but was carried out under orders and on grounds of directions laid down by the Chief Security Office of the Reich and, that it was in no way connected with the sentences of the Special Court."
We offer the Document NG-432 as Exhibit 471.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, which is NG-439, III beginning on page 30 of the English Document Book, on page 28 of the German, will be Exhibit 472.
This is a note dated 19 January 1943 from an SS-Sturmbannfuehrer to State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger, in which he says:
"I informed the Reichsfuehrer-SS of your request that in cases where a regular court did not have sufficient legal evidence to pass a death sentence, but where the execution of the defendant was considered necessary by the offices concerned, there should be no publice announcement of this execution in order not to lower the authority of the courts."
The note goes on to state what disposition had been made of this request by the defendant of Rothenberger.
We offer the Document NG-439 as Exhibit 472.
THE PRESIDENT: The Document will be admitted in evidence.
MR. KING: The next document, NG-533, beginning on page 32 of the English, 29 of the German, will be Exhibit 473. This document is a sworn affidavit of the defendant Rothaug. There are certain portions of this affidavit which we want to call specifically to the attention of the Court. On page 33 I would like to -- on page 29 or 30 of the German -- I would like to begin reading from the English text beginning with the second paragraph from the bottom of the page. The paragraph begins:
"From 1939 until 1943 I was the head of the Special Court in Nuremberg. During the spring of the year 1943 I was transferred to Berlin in the position of a Reich Prosecutor at the Peoples Court. I entered this position on 1 May 1943. I was active in the position of Reich Prosecutor at the Peoples Court until the end of the war.