A. Dr. Martin Dorfmueller, born 9 December 1904 in Rheinhausen at the Lower Rhine.
Q. Dr. Dorfmueller, have you had legal education?
A. Yes, I studied law and I passed the examinations.
A. Would you describe briefly the places and dates where you had your legal education?
A. After concluding my school education at the humanistic Gymnasium in Duisburg, I studied law at the Universities of Heidelberg, Rostock, Bonn and Berlin. I passed my first legal state examination at the Kammergericht, (the highest Prussian court of appeals) in Berlin, the assessor examination, at the Reich Ministry of Justice in Berlin. I passed my Doctor's examination in 1932, after the assessor examination, and I passed it in Heidelberg.
Q. Dr. Dorfmueller, were you ever associated in any way with the Special Court at Nurnberg?
A. Yes; I came to the Special Court in Nurnberg during the war, after I had returned from the campaign in Prance. I took part in the campaign in France as a soldier. I had been declared essential, and in September of 1939 I returned to Nurnberg. A few weeks or months--I believe it was months--afterwards, I was detailed as Prosecutor to the Special Court.
Q. Did you continue as Prosecutor at the Special Court in Nurnberg continuously from that time until the end of the war?
A. No. I was again drafted into the army as a soldier at the beginning of 1943. My deferment was rescinded, and I again came into the Wehrmacht until the end of the war.
Q. Then, Dr. Derfmueller, could you sum up the number of years altogether between 1937 and 1945, the number of years during which you were a prosecutor before the Nurnberg Special Court? How many?
A. I was at the Nurnberg Special Court either from the beginning of 1941 or the end of 1940, I don't remember exactly any more, until the end of April 1943; that is, somewhat longer than two years.
Q, During this time, Dr. Dorfmuellar, that you were a prosecutor before the Nurnberg Special Court, between the years of 1940 and 1943, did you know Oswald Rothaug?
A. Yes. He was, after all, the presiding judge of the Special Court at that time. I also knew him before, not at the Special Court, but occasionally when they had jury trials.
Q. During your activity as prosecutor here at the Special Court, did your office--namely, the office of the prosecution for the Nurnberg Special Court--fully enforce the Nazi criminal laws?
A. I can answer this question with "yes". First, of course, the question was who was in charge of the prosecutor's office. When I was here, there were several chief public prosecutors, there were four altogether. There were, first, Dr. Hoesch, then Chief Public Prosecutor Denzler, then First Public Prosecutor Hoffmann, and finally, Dr. Schroeder. Of course, the manner of leading the office was determined by the Chief Public Prosecutors (Oberstatsanerwelte). I only served under Dr. Hoesch one month. The gentlemen Denzler and Schroeder were doubtlessly National Socialists and therefore during the time when they were in charge of the office, the National Socialist criminal legislation was enforced one hundred percent. To be sure, it was somewhat different when the First Public Prosecutor Hoffmann was in charge, who certainly was not a radical Nazi. Under his leadership of the office an absolutely more reasonable and more moderate tone prevailed in the office.
Q. Doctor, you state that this hundred percent enforcement of Nazi criminal legislation was accomplished be the office of the prosecution. Do you know who was the chief instigator for that?
A. I can answer that question in the following way, that without doubt it was the spirit and the influence of Landgerichts-Director Rothaug who determined the spirit of the prosecution.
His influence was also in back of the Oberstaatsanwaelte, (the chief public prosecutore, at least in back of Dr. Schroeder. His influence was especially extensive in the Nurnberg Palace of Justice, and he practically decided about life and death.
Q. Dr. Dorfmueller, can you describe the facts and occurrences which lead you to say that the prosecution was controlled by Rothaug? He wasn't in the prosecution, he was a judge. Now how could he, how did he control the one hundred percent enforcement of Nazi criminal law by the prosecutors?
A. Well, I myself, as a public prosecutor, was not a member of the Special Court. Therefore, I was not immediately subordinate to Rothaug; therefore I could not receive instructions from him either. However, it was as follows; He was an extraordinarily viralent person and a very important personality who made his political influence felt not only among the members of the Court, but also to the prosecution. He himself not only propagated National Socialist legislation not only in public--that is, in court sessions and lectures-but he did it, constantly, toward his associates during meetings and on official trips, and also on private occasions. He also did it in regard to the prosecutors. The prosecutors were not only together with the Court in the actual sessions of the Court, but also on official trips; and during these trips there was the possibility of having a very close contact. During these official trips Rothaug spoke almost ininterruptedly about criminal and political matters because he did not have or hardly had, any other interests. On these occasions not only individual cases were discussed, but also the basic principles of the National Socialist Administration of Justice, which he always defended, again end again, toward us. So that was the spiritual influence which he exerted.
Moreover, we knew that he was in possission of a very strong position of power politically, because he was in teach with the Gau leadership.
We knew the name of Haberkern in this connection. He also had relationships with the SD; he spoke about this himself. I remember that he spoke about it and that he also mentioned the name Friedrich, which was a name not known to me. That was the manifestation of a certain political power which he had. Moreover, he was a good friend of Dr. Schroeder's, so that in that way too his influence reached the prosecution.
Q. Dr. Schroeder at that time being your boss, is that it?
A. Yes.
Q. During all these discussions that Rothaug had with the Prosecution that you have just described, from those discussions and from what Rothaug said did you gather what Roghaug's conception was of the manner in which Nazi criminal legislation should be enforced?
A. Yes. I never heard a word of criticism of Nazi laws from is mouth. On the contrary, he approved of all these laws without any doubt and he defended them even toward basic objections. And in practice one could say he applied them in an exaggerated manner.
Q. Dr. Dorfmueller, did you share that opinion of Rothaug's which you have just described?
A. Rothaug's conception I did not share for the reason alone that Rothaug was a very radical National Socialist and I was not. Therefore I also did not approve his opinions on criminal law and politics not of carrying on the office, and I did not approve of carrying on a trial, and I can say that I was frequently enraged about these matters.
Q. Dr. Dorfmueller, in these moments of frequent rage that you had against the attitude and methods of Rothaug did you ever attempt to resist those ideas which he attempted to have you out in practice?
A. Of course, this question is a very precarious question. The attempt to resist Rothaug was just as difficult as any resistance toward any other Nazi holder of power, because Rothaug did not permit any resistance and no objection, Against any objection he took very sharp measures. First, if one uttered an objection, even if it was only in a mild form and only on the occasion of a conversation, he was at first not very sharp, but he showed his contempt. He behaved as if one did not have the real political knowledge, also no knowledge of criminal law, and as if one just could not take part in such a conversation. If, then, however, one maintained one's objection he become very strict, and his manner would be demonstrated by a sentence which he once said to me. He said, "Whoever contradicts me arouses the tyrant within me". Those are his words.
His manner was absolutely tyrannical. Asolutely dictatorial.
Q. Doctor, one moment. When Rethaug stated that phrase which you have just quoted, namely, "anyone who resists me brings out the tyrant in me," to whom did he say that?
A. To me, in a private conversation. I believe that it took place in Amberg. He said it to me personally, that is, not in a session of the court.
Q. You at that time were acting as Prosecutor before his court?
A. We were on an official trip in Amberg, and outside of the official business we discussed matters, and in some kind of a connection which I don't remember, he uttered this sentence. I said, that resistance against Rothaug was very difficult because it was dangerous, and only for reasons of power because he had a position of power, but because he made use of this position of power without any consideration, as was his manner. My attempts for more leniency at first, of course, were limited to my own sphere of activity, that is, the prosecution. I could say a great deal about this, but I don't think that it is relevant here. But I also contradicted Rothaug, especially in cases when it was a question of the amount of the penalty and the seriousness of the penalty. I clearly remember several cases in which I made such an objection during the recess which had to be taken before the final plea.
Q. Dr. Dorfmueller, do you know of any orders or directives that were given to your office namely the prosecution, by the Reich ministry of Justice with the intention of requiring the Prosecution's compliance with Rothaug's wishes? Do you know of any such orders or directives?
A. Yes, only the directives did not say: compliance with Rothaug's wishes, but compliance with the wishes of the court. Directives were issued -- I don't remember exactly in what year -- perhaps 1941 or '42. I believe that I also read the written copy of this directive, and I guess it was confidential, or only for official use.
In this directive the prosecutors were instructed, before they made their plea to get in touch with the court in a manner that was not noticeable as far as I remember and then to make the conception of the Court the basis of their own plea, especially in regard to the amount of penalty. This directive was based on the reason that they wanted to avoid the impression among the public as if the conception of the law of the court and the Prosecution were different. This directive was very strange for us, if I may say so. Certainly it was occasioned by certain reasons of state policy, but in our opinion it was contradictory to the principle of the independence of the prosecution and the Court, which was expressed in Paragraph 150 of the Judicative Act. I myself was still educated in the school of the old conception of law before 1933, and I know that I was quite angry about this directive, because they limited the independance of the Prosecution.
Q. Dr. Dorfmueller, with regard to this directive requiring you as a prosecutor to get together with the Court and arrange matters beforehand, did you, in the cases you prosecuted before Rothaug, endeavor to obey that directive?
A. Yes. There was no other possibility. In most cases after the submission of evidence had been completed, a short recess was taken, while formerly normally immediately after the submission of evidence the plea used to follow. Thus the Court called a recess without my making any application for such a recess; that had become usage. The Court went into the chamber and the Prosecutor also went into the counsel chamber. He did not go through the same door; that is, not immediately from the courtroom, but via the hall. This measure also served for the getting in touch between the Prosecution and the Court, The Prosecutor found out the opinion of the Court regarding the criminal deed, the legal conception, and the amount of penalty and had to make this conception the basis of his plea. Often it also happened that the presiding judge wrote a note on which he wrote down the penalty that was to be demanded -- that is, for example, three years' penitentiary, then he handed it to the prosecutor and the prosecutor had to ask for that amount of punishment.
Q. Dr. Dorfmueller, at any time during a trial in which you were a prosecutor before Rothaug, did he ever direct an attack against you from the bench?
A. An "attack" is probably too strong an expression. It was so that during the entire session I did not put in an appearance with the exception of the plea. The Prosecutor did not lead the trial. On the contrary. He did. not have anything to do with the conduct of the trial, and he exerted no influence on it. Even putting of questions was sometimes denied to him, so that he had to limit himself to the plea. During the plea I did not experience any attacks on his part. I did hear side remarks which he made, but not interruptions or reprimands during the session. It was also his effort toward the outside, to make it appear as though there were solidarity between the Court and the Prosecution.
Q. Dr. Dorfmueller, if for example a witness during a trial over which Rothaug presided did not answer questions which you as Prosecutor or any one else may have asked, from your experience what would Rothaug do to that witness, as far as you remember, to correct his answers?
A Well, to that point it has to be said that on the whole only Rothaug himself put questions. It did happen that witnesses were severely reprimanded so that one can say they were frightened to a certain extent by being threatened about political disadvantages too. I experienced it that Rothaug, in the case of a witness whose statements wore not agreeable to him, asked him, "Are you in the Party?" "Who is your ;ocal group leader?" "Are you in the SA?" "What is the name of your Sturmfuehrer?" Then he said, "We shall notify your local group leader." In my conception, therefore, that was a method in order to impress the witness somehow. It often happened I wish to correct: It sometimes happened that such strong and constant reprimands were made to the witnesses that they burst into tears.
Q You have stated, Doctor, that your last boss before the end of the war was Schroeder. Is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, can you tell me what period of time it was, in term of years, that Schroeder was your boss? From when until when?
A Schroeder - just a moment - supposedly he came in 1941, at the beginning of 1941, as far as I remember, and then he was my boss until I was again drafted into the Army as a soldier, that is, until 1943. But as far as I know, he continued to be chief public prosecutor.
Q Yes. Now during the time that you have described, between 1941 and 1943 while Schroeder was your boss in the office of the prosecution, from what you saw and heard can you describe Schroeder's relationship to Rothaug?
A I guess I said already that Schroeder and Rothaug had closer contact than was usually the case in office relations.
We, as subordinates, did not find out too much about it. We only knew the following: Schroeder was a good friend of Rothaug's. They used the familiar form of address toward each other, "Du." They were both followers of the Ludendorff movement as far as I know. They had the same ideological opinions. Whether they had much social contact privately, I don't know. Characteristic of their relationship to each other is perhaps the following fact; namely, the designation that was invented for Dr. Schroeder. Someone had found the not very tasteful designation of "The Tenno" for Dr. Rothaug. That was a name which I, myself, never used because I considered it too manial. Then in this connection the equally ridiculous "The Emperor of Manchuku," was created for Schroeder. That was supposed to mean that he was subordinate to Rothaug and dependent upon him.
Q Tell me again, I have forgotten, what was Schroeder's title during these years that you speak of now?
A That was, as one can say, a nickname, "The Emperor of Manchuku."
Q We understand that, Doctor. I am asking you what was Dr. Schroeder's official title?
A It was Oberstaatsanwalt (Chief Public Prosecutor).
Q At the Special Court, at least, in Nurnberg?
A Yes. He was Oberstaatsanwalt at the District Court in Nurnberg and at the same time the Chief of the Prosecutor's Office at the Special Court. That was his official title, which is also on the stamp which was put on the files: "Chief of the Prosecutor's Office at the Special Court."
Q Doctor, did you ever try any cases before the Nurn berg Special Court when it was presided over by Rothaug wherein the defendants were Poles?
A Yes, I did have some such cases too.
Q. Can you describe, from what you saw, heard, and otherwise observed during your trial of those cases involving Poles, can you describe the attitude and actions of Rothaug toward Poles?
A Yes, I can say a few things about that. Rothaug's attitude toward foreigners was the general Nazi attitude, not only that they considered then as inferior, but it was an attitude of enmity. That applied to Poles, but also to Frenchmen. The treatment of the Poles, or rather evaluation of the Poles, was worse than that of the Frenchmen. The Poles anyhow, through the order regarding Poles and Jews, had a very bad legal position and were deprived of a large number of legal means. In Rothaug's opinion and in his manner of leading a trial, it was as follows: a Pole's credibility appeared small from the beginning, and that for instance the statement of a German carried more weight than the statement of three or four Poles. During the trial, he could not speak directly to the Poles because they did not understand German, and all these matters had to be done via the interpreter and that meant considerable delay, so that he could not express his feelings freely because the interpretation meant a certain difficulty. In any case, his attitude of utter enmity toward the Poles was strongly apparent, also in the extent of the penalty.
Q Dr. Dorfmueller, sometime during the war, that is after 1939, a Pole named Jan Lopata was tried by the District Court in Neumarkt and sentenced to two years. That case was later sent back for retrial a second time. It was sent back from the Reich Supreme Court to the Nurnberg Special Court. Do you remember that case?
A Recently I again read this case and recalled this case after I saw the files.
Q On the file of that case that you say you saw, was there any writing of yours on the file that you had put there at the time?
A Yes. I recently convinced myself and recalled how this incident occurred. It was as follows: that the Pole, Lopata, because of physical assault had got a sentence of two years imprisonment, and that the Reich Supreme Court had objected to this penalty. The Reich Supreme Court had objected to the legal opinion and said that article 4 of the Order against Public Enemies had to be applied. Moreover, the Reich Supreme Court had in its decision expressly emphasized that the penalty of two years imprisonment should have been considerably more severe. I received the file at that time, as expert working on this case. First I forwarded them to the Special Court without an indictment because the Reich Supreme Court had referred the matter to the Special Court Nurnberg. The presiding judge then requested me to file an indictment as prescribed in the code of legal procedure, under consideration of the legal points of view mentioned by the Reich Supreme Court. I followed his order and wrote the indictment which was signed by Oberstaatsanwalt Dr. Schroeder; it then had the typewritten remark made by me, "Intended plea for penalty: 6 years in a penal camp." This penalty would have been considerably more severe than the first one, as the Reich Supreme Court had requested.
Q Dr. Dorfmueller, let me recount the facts briefly. The first time this Polo, Jan Lopata, was tried in Neumarkt, he was sentenced to two years, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And then, after the case had been voided by the Reich Supreme Court and sent back to the Nurnberg Special Court, and you drew the indictment for the second trial, it was your intention to ask for six years, was it not?
A. Yes.
Q Then I assume from that that nothing appeared on the Reich Supreme Court's opinion to make the death penalty mandatory, is that correct?
A No, the Reich Supreme Court merely wrote that a considerably more severe penalty was appropriate.
Q And you thereby indicted the man a second tine and asked for six years, is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Now, although the facts of that case are already before the Tribunal, please recount briefly the sentence that Lopata received in the second trial.
A I was not present during the trial but a colleague of mine was present there. Lopata was sentenced to death. Apparently, this had been intended already before the trial because from the copy of the prosecution which was to be put in the files, I noticed that the words: "Six years in a penal camp," had been crossed out and the words "Death Sentence," had been written above it. That is, I myself, wrote the words, "Death Sentence."
Originally in the indictment, the appointment of a Pflichtverteidiger, (Defense Counsel) by the Court, had not been asked for, as is the usual case when a death sentence is intended, but later I applied for a Pflichtvertcidiger (Defense Counsel appointed by the Court). In the meantime, between the indictment and the motion, the case files were sent to the presiding judge Rothaug. He saw them and read them, and made a decision on them, so that according to my knowledge of the conditions at that time and the mentality of Rothaug, I came to the conclusion that the change in the amount of the penalty was due to Rothaug's influence.
Q Dr. Dorfmueller, did Rothaug, while he was presiding judge of the Nurnberg Special Court, have a deputy to handle decisions and matters of policy in his absence?
AAs far as I know, the deputy presiding judge was Dr. Oeschey, who was originally Landgerichtsrat District Court Counselor of the Special Court.
Q Were you at any time before you left in 1943 for the army, prosecutor in cases before Oeschey?
A Yes, I attended sessions at the time too when Oeschey was presiding judge.
Q Can you give a description, Doctor, so far as you heard and observed, of the professional relationship between Rothaug and Ocschey?
A Because I did not belong to the court itself, I had, of course, not a deep insight into these matters, but as far as I got to know at the time, Oeschey had been promoted from Landgerichtsrat to Landgerichtsdirector (from the District Court Judge to District Court Director) at Rothaug's request, because he had worked during a certain time at the Special Court as District Court Judge, and had proved his worth; his political opinion was beyond doubt and he had the reputation of issuing good judgments; because of both is professional aptitude and his absolute political reliability, within the meaning of this phrase, at that time, Rothaug then made him or had him made his deputy.
Q Doctor, can you explain briefly what you mean by "political reliability" of Oeschey in that connection?
A That is supposed to mean no more or less than the fact that Oeschey was a National Socialist as it appeared already from his position in regard to the party, he was just as unscrupulous and fanatical a National Socialist as Rothaug. That was the reason for his absolute political reliability.
Q Doctor, during the war, or even before, for that matter, did you know anything about the purpose and operation of the Nazi Socialist Lawyers League -- the Rechtswahrerbund?
A That differed from place to place. The Lawyers League, (the Rechtswahrerbund) had as its aim to take charge of the political education of its members; for that purpose it called meetings in which partly political, partly geopolitical, and partly other lectures were delivered. Moreover, it was the task of the Lawyers League to have a hand in the supervision of the Administration of penal justice and in the evaluation of jurists in personnel matters, especially in case of promotions.
Q So far as you know, Doctor, did Rudolf Oeschey hold any position in the Gau Legal Office?
AAs far as I know he was Gau Rechtsamts Leader.
Q Do you know what this title means; do you know what a person who holds that title is officially charged with doing?
AAbout the organization of the Gau leadership, I am not very well informed, but I think I can assume that the Gau Rechtsamt (Legal Office) was in charge of all questions in connection with law which occurred within the Gau, that is, to state its opinion in regard to important legal events and so forth.
Q Was it a Nazi organization?
A Without any doubt. Well, I don't know if it was a Nazi organization in the meaning of Law No. 52, etc., that I cannot say.
Q I was not asking you whether it was with reference to any law. The phrase is unfortunately because it had been used in other places. I am merely asking you if the organization you have just described was a party organization.
A Yes, of course.
Q What geographical area was encompassed by this Gau that you speak of? -- Approximately -
A It comprises Franconia; although I myself am not from Franconia and I don't know the borders very well, but as far as I know the Gau went down as far as the Danube; as far as the Bavarian Forests, Lower Bavaria, Upper Palatinate; and in the other direction, that is, towards the West, Ansbach. These were, in any case, the cities There the sessions of the Special Court were held, and I assumed that the borders of the Gau were in agreement with these borders, but I can't say it exactly, I regret.
Q Now, Doctor, after Oeschey became presiding judge of the Numberg Special Court, were you still here as prosecutor for a time after that occurred?
A No, as far as I know, Oeschey became presiding judge only after I had already become a soldier again, that is, after May, 1943.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: That completes the direct examination, Your Honors.
THE PRESIDENT: Do Defense Counsel desire to cross-examine this witness?
CROSS EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendants Mettgenberg and Klemm)
THE PRESIDENT: On whose behalf are you examing the witness?
DR. SCHILF: For the Defendants Klemm and Mettgenberg.
Q Witness, you mentioned a directive decree -- you said probably of 1941. This was in connection with a question that the Prosecution and the Court had to get in touch with each other regarding the extent of the penalty so that the plea and the sentence would not be too far apart.
You said that this directive was issued, but you did not say what authority issued it.
A If my memory does not deceive me, this directive had been issued by the Reich Ministry of Justice.
Q You stated that far this directive, as far as you remember, the reason we just repeated was given, namely, that if there were too much divergence between the plea and the sentence the public would render or have misgivings, so that the intention of the directive was to prevent this.
A Yes.
Q For this directive, which you yourself must have read, was there not also the second reason -- that the local uniformity of jurisdiction was aimed at, and that in consideration of the fact, that in the course of the war many simplification measures had been taken which also contained limitations of the legal means; that, therefore, the uniformity of jurisdiction had suffered because of the elimination of certain means of legal recourse; do you remember that also this second reason was hinted at in this directive or named in it?
A No, I don't remember that.
Q You said, however, you had read the directive at that time.
A I don't know that exactly, but I believe I remember having read, it once. Any way, it was a practical directive for us and there was no doubt about it; we complied for a long time with this directive so that the directive itself was no longer remembered because it was constantly being applied. Where it was to be found and under what form it was issued, I don't remember that any more.
Q Did you as Prosecutor not receive this directive through another office? Through the General Public Prosecutor?
A Certainly.
Q Did the General Public prosecutor in his district, or the Chief Public Prosecutor, in a closer sense, in your office, did he issue any directives in regard to it?
A Orally, we discussed the matter, I guess; in what form the directive was announced to the prosecutor I cannot say any more. I already stated that it was probably a confidential directive, so that it was probably made known through a special circulation. Whether there was, in addition, an accompanying directive of the Oberstaatsanwalt, I don't know. In any case, in official discussions this requirement of getting in touch was repeatedly discussed.
Q. You told the Court that this contact took place in the following manner: That, contrary to the former practice, after the completion of the submission of evidence a recess was taken?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know whether all courts did this or whether this took place only here in your Special Court here in Nurnberg?
A. I can only report about my observations at the Special Court in Nurnberg, and I do not know anything about other courts.
Q. You did not discuss this practice in other courts with your colleagues, either?
A. No.
Q. Nor later?
A. No.
Q. Whether this practice which resulted as a consequence of this directive, namely, that the prosecutor went across the corridor into the judges' chamber, was also in use at other courts, do you know anything about it?
A. No.
Q. Now, a second point the Prosecution asked you about: the aims, tasks, purposes of the NS Lawyers' League; you gave a brief description. Did you mean to call this an exact description?
A. No, the answer was given absolutely offhand; I was never especially interested in the NS Lawyers' league, and I know only superficially about its aims.
Q. The answer which you gave to the Prosecution here, you would have to limit it subjectively -
A. Yes.
Q. That it was given today, offhand, but that it was in no way tested as to its correctness previously?
A. Not tested previously, but my answer was in accordance with my general impression and my general memory.
Q. You do admit, however, that this memory may be not quite corrent?
A. Of course, it might be that mistakes -
MR. WOOLEYHAN: May it please the Court, if the witness's memory is to be shown to be incorrect, I suggest that it be done by testimony solicited by questions, and not by having the witness make a conclusion as to whether or not it is.
THE PRESIDENT: It seems to me that the question is repetitious. The witness said he was answering from memory and did not pretend it would be accurate. To ask him a second question on that fact does not seem to accomplish anything. That was surely a repetition of a former question. Let us try to have an expeditious trial and not have repetitions.
Q. Witness, do you know that in the NS Lawyer's league, especially during the time when you were declared essential, and working at the court here, was more or less occupying itself only with charity matters; that is with taking care of soldiers as for as they were members, with matters of death insurance, and that it was a legal education and not a political education?
A. Yes, I can confirm that. About its charity activities, however, I do not know; but I do know that the lectures which took place were only very seldom of a purely political nature, and frequently of a geographical nature or of a general educational nature. There were films shown about the Reich Railroad and so forth. Thus no offensive political education took place here in Nurnberg during my time through the NS Lawyers' League.
Q. You mentioned also that the Lawyers' League had influence on personnel policies. Can you base that assumption on any facts that you still may remember today?
A. In general I know from my time as Assessor, that everyone who was supposed to be employed or promoted had an expert opinion given on him and to be pronounced reliable beyond doubt by the political offices. These expert opinions were given above all probably by the party office, that is, the Ortsgruppenleitungen (the local group leadership). At any rate, in my case when I was Assessor in Duessel dorf, I was told so.