MR. WOOLEYHAN: The first seven pages of Document 719, and the first eight pages of the German book, we will not read but describe briefly what they purport to be on their face. These first seven pages in the English book cover a period of some four months between February and May 1944 involving an exchange of correspondence between the Chief Public Prosecutor at Stuttgart and the Reich Ministry of Justice on the question of whether or not Karl Klauzer, at that time in prison in Stuttgart, should or should not be indicted.
There is also mention in these first eight pages of the proposal of the Chief Public Prosecutor in Stuttgart pursuant to an indictment which he is serving against both the aforementioned Karl Klauzer and another person named Klausner. The prosecution proposes to ask for the death penalty for both Klauzer and Klausner by reason of an attempt that these two men made to escape from the prison in Stuttgart on 21 April, 1%1. The next portion of this indictment, of this document logically following the introductory material which I have just described begins on Page 17 of the English and 21 of the German. There we find the verdict of the Special Court in Stuttgart in the criminal proceedings against Karl Klauzer and Hans Klausner for crime of violence and other crimes. The Special Court for the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal in Stuttgart in the session of 9 March 1941, in which participated as presiding judge President of the Senate, Cuhorst, and other officials which we will not name, after a conference ruled as follows:
"Sentences are being passed against:
The defendant Karl KLAUZER for a crime against Paragraph 1 of the Law concerning the safeguarding of legal peace, in conjunction with severe mutiny; the defendant Hans KLAUSNER, as a juvenile arch-criminal and violent-criminal, for a crime against Paragraph 1 of the Law concerning the safeguarding of legal peace, in conjunction with severe mutiny.
That is, the defendant Klauzer was sentenced to penal servitude for five years, and the defendant Klausner is sentenced to death.
Skipping to page 26 of that verdict to the Roman numeral paragraph II. "The criminal act of the defendants." This is part of the Stuttgart Special Courts findings in this case. This is found on page 36 of the German's. It reads as follows:
II. The Criminal act of the defendants.
1) The previous history of the case.
After his arrest at Stuttgart the defendant Klausner was taken to the cell 16 of the Bad Cannstatt branch of the prison for defendants awaiting trial, in Stuttgart. There he met Klauzer who also awaited trial. Both told each other about their offenses. Klausner expected a very heavy sentence and, therefore, decided at all events to escape from prison. Klauzer who considered his penalty of 2 years' imprisonment as unjustifiably hig, declared himself willing to cooperate. Two other prisoner who formerly stayed in his cell, had informed him once of a plan for escape, according to which the head prison-guard should be enticed to enter the cell and be over-powered there. This plan he imparted to Klausner. They discussed it in every detail. According to it the prison-guard, during his morning inspection and whilst the 2nd prison-guard was supervising the exercise of the prisoners in the prison yard, should be held by one and the other one should knock him down from behind with the water-jug. The defendants were convinced that already one blow well-delivered would be sufficient to make the prison-guard unconscious. They also counted upon a fatal injury, tried to avoid this, but, at all events, were willing to put up with it. As they agreed that in case they succeeded in their escape they had at call cost to get away from Stuttgart as quickly as possible and required money, they also considered this problem. Klausner suggested to attack the rural police sergeant in Schwaikheim, to take his arms, his uniform and his motorcycle and then to assault his former employer in Schwaikheim, whom he suspected in possession of a large sum of money. As they needed fire-arms for the attack on the gendarme, they planned that Klauzer should search the quarters of the prison guard before they left prison.
It was clear to both of them that possibly there would be some dead bodies in the course of this project which they had planned even if they preferred it, as Klauzer expressed himself, "there were no dead bodies right away."
However, as they were afraid of the consequences if their attack on the prison guard failed, they at first tried to escape in a manner which was not so dangerous. Under the instruction of Klausner who acquired certain experience in the prison in Heilbronn, they started to break a hole in the exterior wall of the cell on the evening of 20 April 1941; however, they soon struck wood which made a further perforation impossible. As it was certain that they had to expect that this attempt to escape would be discovered, they decided to carry out the original plan in any case on the next morning and to knock down the prison-guard on his tour of inspection of the cells, to seize Ms keys and, if possible, also his uniform.
On Monday, 21 April 1941 they prepared everything before the usual inspection of the cells which, as they knew, would take place during the prisoners' walk in the yard. They arranged the table and chairs in such a way that the prison-guard, after having entered, had to stop for a moment in the center of the room. Then KLAUZER went for the earthen jug which was to serve for the blow, took it from the cupboard near the window, emptied the remaining water and put the jug in the corner of the cell near the door.
When STIBBE, senior-prison-guard, entered the cell for inspection about 8.15, the defendants had occupied their positions, as agreed. KLAUZER, on the entry of the official, got up from his chair, remained standing in front of him and rave KLAUSNER a signal by nodding to him. KLAUSNER whom STIBBE had already passed, had already seized the jug, lifted his arm up high for striking and knocked with all his force on the back of the head of the prison-guard from behind, taking care, in order to obtain a better effect, to hit with the lower edge of the jug. Nearly stunned by the force of the blow the official turned to the left in direction of the door, either with the intention of attacking KLAUSNER or in order to get free. At this moment KLAUZER went after him holding on to his right arm. Then KLAUSNER delivered three further blows with the jug and once again hit STIBBE on the back of his head and twice on the temple bone. At the last blow the jug broke. The prison-guard who had immediately started to shout for help, could free himself and escape into the corridor. KLAUSNER rushed after him, after quickly breaking off a leg from a chair in the cell and taking it into his hand. It could not be safely established, whether he beat the prison-guard who had collapsed for a short time, with the leg of the chair. He, himself, denies this. Probably he had been stopped by other prisoners who came across his way and opposed him.
Answering the cries for help of the head prison--guard STIBBE, the other official on duty, the chief administrator NESTLE, had quickly locked up the prisoners who had been in the yard and rushed to the assistance of STIBBE. On his appearance, the defendants, one of them, KLAUZER, had not left the cell all the time, gave up all resistance and let themselves to be taken into separate cells.
The injuries sustained by the senior prisonguard STIBBE were serious. Today STIBBE is still suffering from headaches and giddiness.
All these facts are established by the confession of the defendants and by the statements made by the witnesses STIBBE and NESTLE.
The only excuse offered by the defendants was that they had acted in youthful frivolity. It is, however, an established fact that they had carefully premeditated their act and that they had fully been aware of the punishment they had to expect, as they had already acquired a certain experience in criminal cases.
KLAUZER, who comes from a good family, was a good scholar and until 1940 he had not become guilty of any crime. He is a soft character, perhaps a little frivolous and not excessively keen on work. Nevertheless he proved that he is able to work even under favorable conditions. Having never become guilty of a crime, he one day suddenly became punishable and did not pick up courage to turn back. His punishable offenses had nothing to do with anything like violence and at best hint at certain inclinations of a swindler, but not those of a violent criminal.
It is he, who first developed the general plan for the attack on the prison guard. But this plan did not even originate from him, all essential details were Klausner's ideas. He also refused to strike the blow with the jug, although, being taller than Klausner, he would have been more suitable for that purpose, and when the first attack had failed, he desisted from any further action.
No doubt, Klausner, on the other hand, had inherited unfavorable characteristics from his father. Instead of going to school or doing his home-work, he gadded about in the street in his early youth already and refused to obey any order. Very early he committed robberies and instigated others to do likewise. Soon he did not restrict himself any longer to occasional robberies, but he proceeded deliberately and did not shrink from applying violence against persons and things. When committing his last thievery, application of violence was taken into account quite consciously as a means to make booty. His punishable offenses thus exhibit a rapid plunge into violent and habitual criminality. Despite his youth he is a dangerous habitual criminal. The formal and material prerequisites of par. 20 a, section 2 of the Criminal Code are given. All educational measures and means of punishment applied against him turned out to be a failure. After his latest penalty which with regard to his age was a heavy one, he immediately made himself some tools for burglary and a few months later again committed punishable crimes. This proves that a change for the better cannot be expected in his case."
At this juncture may we interrupt the presentation to point out that on pages 22, 23, 24 and 25 of this document are found enemerated the past crimes committed by the defendant concerning whom we are now reading, the defendant Klausner. We won't enumerate them here but they are set out on the pages I named. Continuing "In the case for which he is now on trial he worked out all the essential details of the plan of attack and flight."
Skipping to commence with the next to the last paragraph at page 29 of the English, on page 42 of the German's:
"He is a juvenile arch-criminal, a dangerous habitual and violent criminal. On the other hand, in the case of Klauzer the prerequisites for the application of the decree against violent criminals are not given, insofar as he can not be considered as such a type of criminal according to his personality and his whole development.
He probably has a tendency to be a swindler, but is in no way inclined to violence and without Klausner's influence he would never have committed this offense."
"Paragraph Roman numeral IV, Award of Punishment. When awarding the punishment in the case of the defendant Klausner, the following consideration was decisive for the court: Klausner, whose character can be improved by strict discipline, must be given an opportunity in time, despite the seriousness of his deed, to earn his livelihood again and thereby to start a new life."
Going down to paragraph 2: "In the case of the defendant Klausner the punishment was absolutely determined by the decree against violent criminals. Pursuant to this decree he was sentenced to death. To emphasize his personality, his former life and his criminal act, he was deprived forever of civic rights which he, as a juvenile, really does not possess." This was signed by the Presiding Judge, "Cuhorst; certified Stuttgart, 16 May 1941."
On page 14 of this same document is found a communication from the "Public Prosecutor in Stuttgart; to the Chief Public Prosecutor at the Reich Supreme Court, concerning a nullity plea in the criminal case against Hans Klausner; on 9 May, 1941, the barber apprentice Hans Klausner, born on 17 February, 1924, was sentenced to death as a juvenile dangerous criminal and a criminal of violence by the judgement of the Special Court at Stuttgart. Through brief of 19 May 1941 the defense Counsel of the condemned person has asked me to file a nullity plea."
On the following page the prosecutor goes on to say: "I submit the files for a competent resolution. I consider the mullity plea without foundation."
On the next page, page 16, which is 20 of the German, this same Public Prosecutor concludes: "In spite of this in my opinion unimportant weakness in reasoning, I do not consider the judgement unjust but just. Especially on account of my personal impression obtained during the main hearing I can only confirm that Klausner represents the criminal type of a precocious juvenile criminal characterized by an especially objectionable criminal character in regard to whom the death penalty asked for by the court representative appeared to be necessary.
Therefore, I do see no reason to support the nullity plea. Besides, I am of the same opinion as the District Court Public Prosecutor that the postponement of the execution is not warranted at this time."
On page 8 of this document, which is page 9 of the German, appears a clemency petition, addressed to: "Through the offices of the Chief Public Prosecutor; to: The Reich Minister of Justice in Berlin." I might add that this clemency plea was addressed through the office of the Chief Public Prosecutor in Stuttgart. "Subject: Clemency petition in criminal case against Hans Klausner." On the right hand of the page appears a handwritten note: "I share the opinion of the," -- the remainder of the sentence illegible. "In spite of his youth I believe the extermination of the incorrigible and publicly dangerous convict to be a necessity."
On the next page, page 9, which is page 10 of the German, "I am now submitting the files for a decision regarding amnesty."
"From his father's side who runs a small barber shop in Pforzheim, the convict is congenitally trained. According to the investigations of the Special Court the father has a bad reputation, has a criminal record because of seize and concealment of stoled goods; he is a periodic drinker and pays little attention to his family. The mother, it is true, is an industrious woman, but partly for lack of time failed to educate the boy properly. At the early age of ten years he was caught committing shop-lifting in a department store. In the course of time the convict showed an ever increasing incredible disposition to steal."
Skipping to the next paragraph: "Between 7 and 12 April 1941 the convict committed quite a series of grave and very grave burglaries together with other teenagers making use of picklocks and other tools used for criminal purposes. They broke into dwellings and business premises, climbed into buildings, pilfered motorcars, and in two cases used them for a ride.
On account of his crimes and of the penalties therefore inflicted, the convict did not in a single case conclude his apprenticeship, neither as a barber nor as a watchmaker, nor later, again as a barber with another master. Lastly he was in Schwaikheim, ran away without reason after having robbed his master and, following this, he committed the above mentioned crimes."
Skipping, to the last page of this clemency petition, paragraph 5: "The presiding judge of the Special Court and the Court itself are in opposition to an act of grace. As for myself, I concur in these opinions In spite of his juvenile age the convicted clearly and repeatedly demonstrated that he is an incorrigible desperate criminal who not only is completely lacking inhibitions, but, furthermore, is prepared to make use of violence of any kind in order to attain his goal. Therefore, he is a permanent danger to the community of the people, which danger is not even fully eliminated through prison walls, as this case proves."
This case is concluded by a certificate beginning on page 11 of the English version, which is page 13 of the German. This is a communication from the Chief Public Prosecutor of the Special Court in Stuttgart, through the Attorney General in Stuttgart, to the Reich Minister of Justice in Berglin; stamped "immediate, urgent, death sentence; concerning criminal action against Hans Klausner for the Crime of Violence, among other things."
"With reference to my clemency report of 27 June, 1941, I enclose a note on the point of view of the Chancellery of the Fuehrer of the NSDAP, Office for Clemency Matters; forwarded to me subsequently by the Minister of Justice to supplement an appeal for pardon submitted directly to your office by the mother of the convict. Upon my inquiry to the convict's father, if - in case the sentence was executed - he would take care of the dead body for a simple funeral without any ceremonies, he expressed the wish to have the body cremated in Stuttgart and to have the ashes sent to Pforzheim for burial in the local cemetery.
I hesitate to grant his wish because measures connected with death sentences, cremation has not been specifically mentioned. I, therefore, as for instructions. The father of the convict furthermore requests to give him time for paying the funeral expenses. That is another ground why I think that I can not grant the request for cremation. Since, if the relatives of convicts wish to have the dead body handed over to them have to bear the expenses for the funeral, including the costs cf the police supervision, and because in these cases of urgency the police must pass on instructions to the cemetery administration, I have on principle and with rare exceptions made hitherto the handing ever of the dead body to the relatives dependent on payment in advance of the funeral expenses."
The following item on page 15 of the German, page 12 of the English is indicated as a certified copy in the "Criminal action against Hans Klausner, a criminal committing acts of violence, sentenced to death by the Special Court in Stuttgart, dated 9 May 1941. I have decided not to make use of the right of pardon betowed upon me by authorization of the Fuehrer on 3 September 1939, but to let justice take its course. Berlin, 28 July 1941, the Reich Minister of Justice, charged with the conduct of official business; signed Dr. Schlegelberger."
This document concludes with page 13, which is page 16 in the German, under the letterhead "The Director of the Remand Prison, in Stuttgart, dated Stuttgart 8 August, 1941; addressed to Attorney General in Stuttgart; Reference, Execution of a death sentence in the Remand Prison."
"Early this morning Hans Klausner was executed in the covered court yard of the justice premises. The execution took place without incident."
The Prosecution offers Document NG-719 as Exhibit 191.
THE PRESIDENT: It will be received in evidence.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Turning now to Document NG-594, which is the second document in this same book.
To avoid confusion, may I ask the Tribunal's indulgence. My book starts with page 2, at the beginning of Document NG-594.
THE PRESIDENT: That concurs with our record.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Fine. This document is a typewritten note, bearing certain hand-written language at the end. The note is as follows: "Communist-inspired high treason is being prosecuted with particular ruthlessness since the outbreak of war with Soviet Russia.
In its administration of justice the People's Court establishes as a principle that all communist activity after 22 June 1941 will be subject to the death penalty. This line of action was at the time instituted by the minister and on the whole maintained up to the spring of this year. In the Courts of Appeal, to which the less important cases are transferred, it has, however, proved impossible to apply it with equal vigor. As a rule the Courts of Appeal have only seen fit to inflict the death penalty for communistic high treason after 22 June 1941, if the perpetrator had in any way taken an active part in the Communist Party over and behond joining it as a member and paying his contributions.
"The Stern administration of justice by the People's Court was always fully supported by the ministry's method of granting reprieve. Reprieves were only granted on very rare occasions, and then only if there were very special reasons."
Skipping down to the last paragraph:
"The Gauleiter Von Schirach and Uiberreither appear to approve of the harsh policy of the People's Court. They have hardly ever approached the Reich Ministry of Justice of their own accord with recommendations for a reprieve. In cases where a reprieve was contemplated by us and they were advised of our intention in advance, an agreement was nearly always obtained."
Skipping down to the last paragraph, Note 2:
"The death sentences which the People's Court has imposed in cases of high treason have of late often shown too much of a condensed presentation. In most cases nothing at all is said about the personal circumstances of the condemned: at best, a short indication is given of their political background. Of greater weight is the fact that also in cases of the condemned persons' plea of innocence the appraisal of the evidence, as related to actual facts of the case, is confined to brief hints at statements made by the condemned person before the judge in preliminary proceedings, or before the police, or even simply on the conviction of the Senate itself.
A critical estimation of such a verdict is hardly possible. The recommendation to put it into effect presupposes absolute confidence in the Court of Justice. Such confidence, however, is shaken when, as for instance in the case of Schwarz et al, facts become known afterwards which make a condemned person's declarations previously brushed aside as being untrue appear very probable, and which thus must result in the case being retried."
Then, a handwritten, Paragraph 3: "See the minister's letter, Berlin, 4 June 1943, signed Vollmer," and to the right of the former's signature is a handwritten initial which the prosecution contends is that of the defendant Joel.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER (Counsel for defendant Rothenberger): This document has by the additional note at the end some relation to the case of the defendant Rothenberger. I point out that on this document there is no signature or no initial of the defendant Rothenberger. Moreover, from the beginning of this document it is not apparent who actually sent this document. There is no letterhead on it so that I would ask the Tribunal to rule whether it shall be admitted as evidence, which I would like to reject, or whether it will be accepted with the certain amount of probative value.
DR. PETERSDORF (Counsel for defendant Joel): May I point out that the signature under the document is a large "I", not the signature of the defendant Joel but probably of another official whose name is Jaeger, who signed this document probably. A comparison of this initial on the document with the signatures on photostats of the defendant's will clarify this without any further difficulty. The initials of the defendant Joel consist of a large "I" with a horizontal line with through it and can be distinguished from the "J" which is on this document. Therefore, the document cannot be brought into relation with the case of the defendant Joel.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: The prosecution invites the Tribunal to compare the initial on this document just being discussed as being possibly that of the defendant Joel with Exhibit No. 57 which was the initialed exhibit and if in the Court's opinion they seem similar; otherwise, the prosecution will be forced to again introduce expert testimony to the end of establishing, as far as we are concerned, and for the Court's edification, that this is the initial of the defendant Joel.
THE PRESIDENT: One difficulty about the matter at this time is that the Tribunal does not have on the bench, Document 57. Another difficulty , is that the Court does not exactly relish being experts on the matter of handwriting or comparisons of handwriting or heireglyphics. It is therefore suggested that we wait until tomorrow morning and see if Counsel for the Prosecution and defense can reach an agreement on this matter. If not it may be necessary to have expert testimony.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: We will withhold introduction of that document then.
THE PRESIDENT: It is so near to the usual adjournment time, this impasse makes it -
MR. WOOLEYHAND: If you will indulge the Prosecution for a moment, I think we can obviate the necessity of bringing any document to Court tomorrow morning if I can but read one short affidavit concerning the film to be shown tomorrow morning. That will relieve our taking anything in the way of documents into Court tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. It will not take very long, I take it.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: This document is NG-1020. NG-1020 is a sworn affidavit reading as follows:
"I, Karl Jocoby, make the following statement under oath:
"In 1945 I worked with the Field Photographic Branch of the Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C. in the capacity of Chief Photographic Analyst, and participated , on behalf of the Office of U.S. Chief of Counsel, in the production of the film "Rise and Decline of the Nazi Party".
"On this occasion, I saw the film called "Proceedings against the criminals of 20 July 1944" in Berlin in Autumn 1945 and I am, therefore, able to confirm the identity of the present cutting with the material found in Berlin.
"The present cutting of the film called "Proceedings aga inst the criminals of 20 July 1944" NG-1019 is a copy made from films confiscated in Autumn 1945 by the American Military Government in the Berlin-Tempelhof offices of the "Afifa", which is a Joint stock company for motion picture productions.
"According to the Fifa's information, the original negative was 11-14,000 meters long and had been taken by the "Deutsche Wachenschau" by order of Goebbels' Ministry for Propaganda. According to a statement of the director of the Afifa, the Ministry for Propaganda sent for and destroyed tho negative of the first version before the end of the war on 18 April 1945.
"In Autumn 1945 a copy was made from the remaining films found at the Afifa, by the Field Photographic Brand of the Office of Strategic Services, Washington, D.C.
"This film is identical with the film I saw in Autumn 1945 in Berlin, which was made out of the remaining material of the Afifa; it is, however, merely a cutting of this film."
This is signed, "Nuernberg, 6 March 1947, Karl Jacoby." It bears the requisite jurat.
The resecution offers as Exhibit 192 this document, NG1020.
THE PRESIDENT: But your number 192 is the number applied to the previous exhibit. Do you want this as a part of that?
MR. WOOLEYHAND: He previous exhibit , I believe , was withdrawn, Your Honor, at the suggestion of the defense.
THE PRESIDENT: I thought it was me merely withheld to be disposed of Monday morning.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: In the event, this will be 193.
THE PRESIDENT: What book and page do you think this should be in so we will have *uniform records.
MR. WOOLEYHAND: There is no place where it has to be. It can be inserted at the end of Book 3-e. I believe that is about the most convenient place.
THE PRESIDENT: He will receive this inevidence.
We will adjourn at this time, but we will meet tomorrow morning, Saturday morning , at 10 o'clock a.m., in Room 600. It will be a regular session of the court in which the defendants will all be present. For further identification, it is the room heretofore used for Tribunal Number 1, but it is Room 600.
The Court may now be adjourned.
(At 1630 , 28 March 1947, the Tribunal recessed to reconvene at 1000 hours, 29 March 1947.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alsteeter, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 31 March 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. Marshall, you will please ascertain if the defendants are all present.
THE MARSHALL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the courtroom with the exception of defendants Engert and Rothaug who are absent through illness.
THE PRESIDENT: The proper notation will be made.
MR. LaFOLLETTE: May I ask the Court's indulgence for a minute or two while I call the Court's attention to a motion filed by the Prosecution entitled, "Prosecution's Motion for an Order of the Court' Approval to the Interrogation of Witnesses." This motion was duly filed, translated, and given to the Secretary General on March 19th. Thereafter it remained in the Secretary General's possession until Tuesday of last week. Which, after some interrogation, I found that it was in the possession of Mr. John R. Niesley, the Legal Counsel for the Secretary General, and it was returned to my office. It was returned with a notation that in substance, the motion was not very good and I should rewrite it.
Well, I am of the opinion that the Secretary General's Office primarily exercises the function of a Clerk for these Tribunals, and that Mr. Niesley's functions are a little unusual in that they are not found in the normal Clerk's office, and that he is an advisor to the Tribunal. All of which I have no quarrel with, but it strikes me that the limit of Mr. Niesley's authority would be to make his recommendations to the Court, and not to delegate to himself the power to return directly to the Counsel who had filed a motion, a motion with the notation that Counsel should re-prepare it or prepare it anew.
That is my first objection to that procedure.
The second is, that the notation returned stated, that is, to the matter set out in paragraph 1 of my motion: The fact of the matter and reference made in paragraph a, that this Court had provided by Rule 23, for the method of interrogating witnesses by a Commissioner where the witness was a defendant in the Nurnberg jail -- I mean was a prisoner in the Nurnberg jail, excuse me, and the Defense desired to interrogate him, and the interrogation was approved by the Tribunal. I am aware of the fact that the rule was made. We simply ask, in the motion, that the Tribunal should make an order for the orderly interrogation of such witnesses.
As I recall Rule 23, I did not bring it with me, it also provided, from after the date that any Counsel for Defense, desired to interrogate a person who is held as a prisoner in the Nurnberg jail, that the Court approves the right to interrogate; that thereafter the Prosecution shall likewise not interrogate that witness except under the Commissioner.
My point is -- I have on hand an extra copy of the motion, and perhaps the Tribunal would like me to send it up. I do not know whether there is a copy with the Court.
(The motion was delivered to the Tribunal.)
All I am asking, beginning at the bottom of page 2, is that: Wherefore, the Prosecution respectfully motions to the Court to make and enter the following orders on each of them: A) That all interrogations of all persons named in paragraph I shall be interviewed and interrogated by either the Prosecution or the Defense solely in the manner provided by Rule 23 of this Court. And, that the Court forthwith issue an order against the Prosecution and the Defense, prohibiting them interviewing any of the aforesaid witnesses, from and after the day this Tribunal shall act upon this motion, except in the manner provided by Rule 23 of this Court.