Court No. III, Case No. III.
A. Yes.
Q. Would you read that down practically to the bottom of the page, down to the sentence which ends "from a fine to the death penalty."
A. "In the present stage of the war, the prosecution of inciting, undermining and defeanist remarks is one of the most important tasks of the competent Courts. Should the courts fail here, there would be a danger of internal domestic conditions arising such as in the fall of 1918. A certain difficulty arises from the fact that apparently a uniform treatment has not yet been achieved. On the one hand, we have the jurisdiction of the People's Court punishing such remarks sometimes, as favoring the enemy, with the death penally. On the other hand, not infrequently quite similar remarks cone to the Prosecution Office at the Special Courts which in their case reports to the Reich Ministry of Justice often express the opinion that undermining of military morale did not exist for some reason or other or, at any rate, could not be proven; they therefore suggest to order the prosecution under Section 3 of the Malicious Acts Law. The Reich Ministry of Justice tacitly approves of this attitude by ordering the prosecution under the said provision. There is a grain of truth in the opinion, occasionally heard as a jocular exaggeration, that a certain remark could lead to any punishment, from a fine to the death penalty."
Q. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: That is from one of your reports, is it, Witness?
THE WITNESS: Yes, it is.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: 4 December, 1943.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Did you do anything to correct that situation that you reported?
A. These situation reports, of course, were drawn up out of tactical consideration. The opening sentence often sounds very severe, but then it is followed by the limitation, and these are the main thing. These situation reports are a peculiar thing altogether. I recall a conference in the Reich Ministry of Justice when Dr. Freisler, who presided over it, severely criticized our situation reports. Later on I did not write any more situation reports at all. If I may add, the focal point was not constituted by these general reports but by the daily routine.
Q. I hand you a situation report, yours of the 10th of July, 1940. Now in the second paragraph you find -
THE PRESIDENT: May I suggest -
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Yes, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: -- that the Tribunal is not at liberty to treat a situation report or a letter as being the letter er the report of this witness, merely because counsel says so. I am not suggesting that counsel is in error, but will you kindly ask the witness if it is his report, instead of merely stating it as counsel. Then the record will be clear.
THE WITNESS: The report is mine. It originated from me.
BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. All of those you read from were made by you, were they not, this morning?
A. Yes.
Q. Let's read just this paragraph, the second paragraph that is marked. It begins, I think, on the 4th line from the bottom of the German text. "Even those circles who perhaps up to now had not found such inner contact with National Socialism--" Do you find that?
A. Yes.
Q. Will you read that?
A. "Even those circles who perhaps up to now had not found such inner contact with National Socialism now unreserved by acknowledge the Fuehrer's greatness and the successes achieved by National Socialism. But it must not be overlooked that the Roman Catholic clergy, for all their reserve, still adheres to its attitude of opposition. At the Special Court in Stuttgart some serious cases against Roman Catholic priests are pending (listening to foreign broadcasts and malicious attacks)."
Q. May I ask you, in preparing your situation report, did you consider it proper to out in matters that were of importance in your Oberlandesgericht district so that you could advise the Ministry of Justice of that?
A. Yes.
Q. So that the things you reported, in your opinion, were matters of importance to the Administration of Justice in our district?
A. They were supposed to be general reports about the general situation.
Q. Because they were of interest to the Administration of Justice?
A. Yes.
Q. I shall hand to you a situation report which purports to be made by you on 6 November 1940 and ask you to look at that, and did you make it?
A. Yes.
Q. I won't bother you with.the first paragraph which is marked, but I wish you would begin with the second paragraph, 5th line from the bottom in the merman text, which begins, "Lately various presidents of District Courts have "mentioned the extermination of insane people."
A. Yes.
Q. Will you read that?
A. Yes, I have found the passage. "Lately, various presidents of District Courts have mentioned ti.e extermination of insane people in Grafeneck, not because they only found out about it now, but because gradually serious uneasiness is spreading among the population. The knowledge of these facts is reaching wider and wider circles. Children bring such information home from school or from the street.
"These matters are discussed a great deal, and especially serious cases are talked about again and again, for example, that there are also veterans who were injured during the war and who have had to be cent to institutions and that they, too, are affected by these measures.
"Very dangerous in the rumor at present in circulation, 'Now after the insane have been disposed of on the whole, it would be the turn for the old and infirm.' It is obvious that here where everything is to be done secretly, such romors start easily and are spread.
"The legal sentiment of the people should not be underestimated. The population says: Is everything done fairly here? Who is responsible? What security exists? What safeguards exist that the limits will not be exceeded, etc? A clear word, clearly underlined, a clear regulation seems to me urgently necessary. Similar doubts also are awakened to among the population by the informations issued from time time by the Reichsfuehrer SS that somebody or other was shot because of resistance. I don't believe that anybody in the population believes in that resistance any longer. And even though as a rule they are probably habitual criminals whose personal fate is not of interest to anyone, the population "Nevertheless does ask, on what law this action is based, and what the Administration of Justice is there for, any way?
That this is a question which touches the roots of the Administration of Justice, and not only the Administration of Justice, I do not have to go into any further."
Q. I think that is fine. Now let me ask you, when did you. receive your meritorious war Medal, Second Class, in 1942? Do you remember?
A. Yes. I did pot participate in the war, so I did not nave the Iron Cross. It must have been the Meritorious War Service Medal, Second Class. I don't know when I received it.
Q. I beg your pardon. I thought I said Meritorious War Medal. I meant to say Meritorious Mar Medal Second Class. When did you get it?
A. I don't remember any more.
Q. Would it be in the spring of 1942?
A. It is possible; that happened in the proper order.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until 1:30 this afternoon.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing recovered at 1330 hours, 4 September 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again is session.
DR. BRIEGER: May it please the Tribunal, may be permitted before the session continues, to put a brief question to Mr. LaFollette concerning a statement which he made this morning.
Mr. LaFollette, if I understood you correctly, you said this morning that the affidavit mas taken of Gramm because it was not possible to hear him as a witness on that subject. Was that about what you said, because the witness wasn't available, or something like that?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Of course, the situation was this, Your Honor. The witness came to testify on behalf of the defendant Schlegelberger. After his testimony the affidavit was taken. We had no opportunity then to put the witness on. I am aware of the fact that if I possibly can, I must bring him back in rebuttal, but the circumstances were such that we couldn't offer him as a witness.
DR. BRIEGER: That is what I wanted to make clear, to have stated that he was examined here and immediately thereafter was taken. Thank you.
DR. OTTO KUESTNER- Resumed CROSS-EXAMINATION - Continued BY MR. LA FOLLETTE:
Q. Dr. Kuestner, do you know a man named Dr. Aleis Meisenhelder who served as a judge from time to time June 1942 at the Special Court Stuttgart?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you know that he formally objected to being asked to serve with the defendant Cuhorst?
A. Of that I do not have the least knowledge.
Q. And you didn't know that he asked to be removed because he could n't sit on the same court with the defendant Cuhorst because of his treatment of his associate judges when they disagreed with him? You don't know anything about that?
A. No, of that I do not know anything, either. I knew that Dr. Meisenhilder after some time asked to be transferred from the Special Court. As far as I remember, he joined the Prosecution of the Special Court. What the reason was for his request, I no longer know. But it is certain that to no ho did not state the reason which has just been mentioned.
Q. You succeeded Dr. Hess as president of the Oberlandesgericht. Stuttgart, did you not?
A. Yes.
Q. Did or did Has resign in protest ever being required to name Cuhorst as the President cf the Civil Senate?
A. Hess himself when he told me that he had offered his resignation, said that he could not be president of the court if at the same time a young and inexperienced an as Cuhorst was the presiding judge of a Senate.
Q. And the thereafter you accepted the appointment?
A. Yes.
Q. Is you proceeding before the Spruchkammer ended?
A. No.
MR. LA. FOLLETTE: That is all.
DR. BRIEGER: Just a few questions in re-examination May I be permitted to do so?
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. First, to refer to the last question put to you by Mr. La Fellette, are you incriminated politically in any other way than by the fact that you were President of the District Court of appeals?
A. Yes. According to the purge law, also by the fact that I was a member of the NSDAP since the first of May, 1933 Recently the Public Prosecutor in Stuttgart told me that that there was nothing else against me.
Q. Men in your position, that is to say the presidents of District Courts of Appeals always had the reputation that they were expected to be some sort of diplomats, is that correct, or did I have to add another question?
A. It is quite true. In an office such as that of the President of the District Court cf Appeals, particularly during those years, one had to sue a lot of tact and diplomacy.
Q. Accordingly, when you made the reports to the Reich ministry did you had to compose them in a such a manner that you did not make your own position untenable, that is, you desired to -remain in office?
A. Well, I should like to put it this way. Frequently it was necessary if one wanted to achieve a certain purpose, to use a great deal of diplomacy and tact. It was not a question of remaining in office,but of achieving one's purpose. For instance, if it was a matter of the promotion of an official who was not a party member, the it was necessary to explain in the reports in detail what a good National Socialist he really was, so that a promotion which, for purely objective reasons, one considered right, would be successful.
Q. Could that happen also in cases where in your own mind you were convinced or at least where your opinion was that the man certainly was not a reliable National Scialist?
A. Certainly.
Q. The Prosecutor has submitted a document here concerning the Untermarchtal proceedings. Witness, did Cuhorst have anything at all to do with the confiscation of the convent?
A. Of that I just don't happen to know anything, but I do not believe that Cuhorst had anything to did with it.
THE PRESIDENT: If you don't know, that is the end cf the answer.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. When did President of the District Court of appeals, Hess retire?
A. That must have been at the end of 1934.
Q. When did Cuhorst take over the Special Court office?
A. In the fall of 1937.
DR. BRIEGER: Thank you. That is sufficient.
THE PRESIDENT: The witness is excused. Call your next witness.
DR. WILLY SCHORECK, a witness, took the stand and testified as follows:
JUDGE BLAIR: Hold you your right hand and repeat after me the following oath:
I swear by God, the Alright and Omniscient, that I will speak the pure truth and will withhold and add nothing.
(The witness repeated tho oath)
JUDGE BLAIR: You may be seated.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Your Honors, I ask for permission to examine my witness, Dr. Scherck. Doctor, may I ask you to tell the court your mane -- that is, also you first mane--the lace and the date of your birth.
A. Dr. Willy Schoeck; born the 27 August 1901 in Stuttgart, living at Stuttgart, Tayerstrasse 10.
Q. Are you a free man or are you imprisoned?
A. A free man.
Q. Were you a member of the NSDAP or its affiliations?
A. I was not a member of NSDaP. I was a sponsoring member of the SS from 1934 until 1939, with a monthly contribution of two marks.
Q. Your membership as a sponsoring member of the SS, does that mean an incrimination in the sense of law?
A. I do not believe so, since the contribution was too marks permonth.
Q. When was your profession in Stuttgart between 1933 and 1945?
A. I was an attorney with the District Court and District Court of appeals in Stuttgart.
Q. Were you also a criminal defense counsel?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you say that during those year you were on of the busiest defense counsel in Stuttgart?
A. I believe I can say so.
Q. When Cuhorst was presiding, did you defend frequently and apporzimetely how often?
A. I frequently defended when Cuhorst was presiding judge, but I could not tell you approximate number of cases.
Q. What kind of cases did you deal with?
A. They were case of malicious acts, crimes against the war economy listening to broadcasts, preparation for high trasen.
Q. Did you also act as an appointed counsel or were you always a counsel selected by the defendant?
A. Occasionally. I was appointed by the court as defense counsel.
Q. In specific cases or generally?
A. Quite generally?
Q. It is true that particularly in complicated war economy crime cases, you were appointed?
A. Primarily, yes.
Q. Do you remember cases where Cuhorst went beyond the sentence demanded by the prosecution?
A. From my own experience, I do not remember any such case.
Q. Do you remember any cases where Cuhorst's sentence as below the sentence demanded by the prosecution?
A. That occurred frequently.
Q. Were all judges of the Special Court, party members?
A. No. I believe I know that Director Behn and Landgerichtsrat Winter were not members. Of the other judges--that is all the other judges, I could not say it for sure.
Q. Did you defend cases of malicious acts when Cuhorst was presiding?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you have the impression that the Special Court under Cuherst was severe or lenient?
A. The expression "lenient" does not seem to be very suitable.
Q. What is your can expression, witness?
A. I should like to say that Cuhorst, in cases of crimes against the war economy or crimes against the public enemy decree.
Q. Did the Gestapo or the SD have any influence on Cuhorst's practice, especially in political cases?
A. Of course, from. my own knowledge, I cannot say to what extent there existed any such influence. Personally I am of the opinion that an influence of that kind could not very well be exerted on the person of Cuhorst because Cuhorst probably did not permit even these offices to interfere with his work. To me. occasionally in the course of conversations, he made mention of the fact that one of these offices in one or another case got in touch with him or intended to get in touch with him; but at the same time, he more or less clearly expressed that he would not acknowledge any influence of that kind. That, considering his character, was quite clear to me from the outset, because it was he who decided.
Q. May I discuss the next question now? Did Cuhorst, according to you observation favor defendants who were Party members?
A. In my opinion, that is not true at all. In that field I had quite a let of experience. Many defendant when I had to defend wanted that I, as the defense counsel, should emphasize that they, the defendants , was a members of the Party or had special merits in the party. I always told these defendants that according to my practical experience in such cases, it would be entirely wrong before Cuhorst for the defense counsel and the defendant of all things to refer to that fact. I experienced to quite frequently that Cuhorst, confronted with defendants who had referred to that, raised the vey elcar reproach, "If you refer to the fact that you are a member of the Party, then you would have been under much greater obligation to keep strictly to the rules of the law." Based on that experience, I gave the advice which I have mentioned before ts the defendants.
Q. Do you happen to know cases where Cuhorst with great Severity, attacked abuses in the Party? Will describe these cases?
A. I happen to know of such cases from my own experience. I want to mention first the case of a manufacturer by the name of Wohlheld, when I defended in Kirchheim-Unterteck. In this case, prominent party members had illicitly received cloth from the defendant who had a textile factory. Cuhorst, in the course of the proceedings preesed the defendant to tell him the names of these prominent Nazis. The defendant refused to do so. During the noon recess, Cuhorst asked me whether I happened to know the names of these people. I told him that I know some of the names but that my duty to observe secrecy as an attorney and counsel did not permit me to mention these names. During the afternoon recess, Cuhorst again asked the defendant to tell him the names. The defendant, however, did not do so.
I remember furthermore the case of the brothers, held and Fullinger who were also indicted for crimes against the war economy. I defended the defendant Fullinger. In that case too, according to my recollection, prominent Nazis illegally had obtained goods. The defendant Wolf--I do no longer remember which one of the two is was-as fast as I remember, mentioned first one name in the whisper; where-upon Cuherst demanded that he should repeat that name aloud. It must have been in that connection t hat the expression was used that were people with a let of glietter on their uniform were involved. What was meant were the golden insignia of the Party uniforms. As far as I heard later, on account of that statement, proceedings before the -so-called party court were instituted against Cuhorst. I had nothing to do with that case.
I remember another case, an offense against the war economy The defendant was the Manufacturer Hepking at Feuerbach near Stuttgart. In that case, two witnesses were heard who incriminated the defendant greatly. Those witnesses were in a relation of dependency with the Party and together with the DAF--the German labor front. They had tried to get the entire enterprise into the hands of the DAF or into their own hands. Cuhorst referred to that in the course of the proceedings and treated the two witnesses rather oughly--so much so that listeners told me afterwards it was a question who had been the defendants.
These are the three cases I can remember.
Q. Now. I want to put my next question. Did Cuhorst consider an interference of administrative offices in to the judiciary admissible or was he against it?
A. About that, I cannot make a definite statement. I can only say what I could gather from statements made by him--the wording of which, of course, is no longer known to me literally. Occasionally, he would say, for instance, that in this or that case the Gestapo or some office of the Party had intentions to interfere in the proceedings or asked for a particularly severe sentence. But always he made it clear that he would not permit anybody to interfere with his decisions.
Q. Did the Penal Chamber during the war ever pronounce death sentences?
A. I do not remember that during the war the Penal Chamber in Stuttgart pronounced a death sentence.
Q. THE PRESIDENT: Merely for clarification, may I ask: the Penal Chamber of what court?
THE WITNESS: I was just going to say the Penal Chamber of Stuttgart.
THE PRESIDENT: The Penal Chamber of the District Court?
THE WITNESS: The Penal Chamber was a part of the District Court, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You are not referring to the Court of Appeals?
THE WITNESS: No, Your Honor, the Court of Appeals did not have a Penal Chamber.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. It does not refer to a court where Cuhorst was ever a judge?
A. No, Cuhorst during the war was not with the Penal Chamber.
THE PRESIDENT: We may understand than that these various references to the testimony on the Penal Chamber all referred to the District Court. It's just a matter of terminology.
DR. BRIEGER: Yes, just a parallel for reasons of comparison.
THE WITNESS: May I finish my answer now? I do not remember that the Penal Chamber in Stuttgart during the war ever pronounced a death sentence, but, of course, I have to concede the possibility.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witness, may I ask you when you finish answering a question to give me some indication. Do you happen to know of any case where the Special Court under Cuhorst violated the substantive penal law?
A. From my own experience, I cannot remember a case of that kind.
Q. Is it correct that Cuhorst considered those directives from. Berlin as too severe and what was his attitude? Do you know of any details? Did you understand the question, witness?
A. I have understood the question. I remember various conversations which were held concerning suck directives which came from. Berlin. I can confirm that Cuhorst, if he spoke about directives of that kind, frequently did that in a disapproving or aggravated tone; for instance, by saying, "Here, there is another one of these instructions."
From the tone of his voice, as he made such remarks, I had to assume that he considered himself independent of such instructions. That, of course, was my personal impression.
Q. Do yon happen to know anything about the difficulties which arose from the introduction of the nullity plea or the extraordinary objection?
A. Difficulties resulted therefrom to the effect that the sentence of the Special Court and Penal Senate now no longer were valid the moment they wore pronounced, but there remained the possibility for superior offices to submit-
THE PRESIDENT: Of course, we know all of that.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Was the practice of the Special Courts and the Penal Senate in accordance with that of the Reich Supreme Court?
A. I would say that according to my knowledge the practice of the Special Court and of the Penal Senate tried to adjust itself to the practice of the Reich Supreme Court. But from my own experience, I can also state that the Special Court as well as the Penal Senate sort of hesitated to follow these practices. For instance, the Special Court Stuttgart for quite some time would consider a case, a case of a malicious act; whereas in a case of a similar kind, according to its practice, the Reich Supreme Court would already have assumed undermining of military morale. I have already stated, however, that the Special Court and the Penal Senate later adjusted themselves to the practice of the Reich Supreme Court.
Q. What you said about Stuttgart in general, did that also refer to Cuhorst in particular?
A. That also referred to Cuhorst.
Q. Did you have an opportunity to observe the practices and sentences to the extent that you could toll the Tribunal in what cases Cuhorst was severe and in which cases he was lenient? I believe you have answered that question already. Therefore, I do not want to repeat that question. As a well-known criminal defense counsel in Stuttgart, did you frequently speak to people of all classes about the practices and sentences of the Special Court, especially about those when Cuhorst was presiding, so that you could gain an impression as to whether the severity which Cuhorst displayed against violent criminals and the worst racketeers was approved by the population?
A. Of course, I had an opportunity, on the basis of my largo practice and the large number of acquaintances, to speak to many people about that question. As far as severe sentences were applied to large-scale offenders against the war economy and black marketeers, to my knowledge severity was approved by every no. It was different, however, in more harmless cases, such as cases of malicious acts or similiar matters.
Q. How arc transgressions against national economy and violent crimes judged by the population today?
THE PRESIDENT: We are not concerned with that.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q. Witnesses of the prosecution have raised charges against Cuhorst in the case Esterle, a black market operator whom he sentenced to death. What can you say about the events after the sentence? Will you please describe the details?
A. In reference to this point, I can say something from my own knowledge and something from what I have heard about it.
Indirectly I know those things because I had my own office together with an attorney Dr. Wacker, who defended at the time the defendant Esterle together with attorney Dr. Klett; who is now the Lord Mayor of Stuttgart. I know that the defendant Esterle after the sentence was pronounced by the special court filed an application for a so-called reopening of the trial. I know also that Esterle emphasized in that connection that his defense counsel had instructed him that during the main trial he was to admit the facts because in this Cuhorst more or less clearly had promised that the sentence would be only a penitentiary term. To what extent that statement which was made by Estarle was accurate, I cannot say. My colleague, Dr. Wacker, told me at any rate that he had not told Esterle of any promise of such a nature on the part of Cuhorst.
Q May I continue, please. On the basis of your many years of observation as a judge and a human being, would you consider it possible that he would make such an agreement with any defense counsel; regardless of whether he was a member of the same fraternity -- by that I mean a man whom he knew during the time of their studies, belonging to the same fraternity.
THE PRESIDENT: That goes beyond the scope of proper examination. It merely calls for an opinion of the witness as to what some one else might have done. You will have to leave that to the Tribunal to judge.
Q Did you have anything to do with the case against Michael Schmidt, the man who stole field post parcels; whom did you defend and whom did Dr. Diesem defend?
A I took part in that case. Attorney Diesem defended the defendant Michael Schmidt; I defended the co--defendant; I believe Ms name was Bauer, but I could not say for certain. Bauer was charged for receiving the goods.
Q Did you have a conference with Dr. Diesem before the final plea and what did you discuss?
A First I may say -
MR. La FOLLETTE: I object, Your Honor, to Ms testifying to any conference between the witness and Dr. Diesem before the final plea; it certainly could hot be relevant.
DR. BRIEGER: My question is really very important; it will show immediately why, if the witness is given an opportunity to answer -
THE PRESIDENT: What are you deriving at?
DR. BRIEGER: I want to enter into what the witness Diesem was stated here before the Tribunal, that he would have considered the theft of field packages of cigarettes, at the time as a case of minor theft of food and that he made the plea accordingly. That is what the witness wants to discuss now.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the witness know what plea was made by Diesem? Do you know what plea was made by Diesem?
Q Witness, -
THE PRESIDENT: He may answer the question that the Tribunal asked him.
A I know that. I was present at the trial.
THE PRESIDENT: State it. State what it was.
AAm I only to say what he said during the trial or what he told me privately.
THE PRESIDENT: Say what he said during the trial; that is what we are interested in.
A His statements during the trial were in fact to the effect that he described the act committed by the defendant Schmidt only as a case of minor theft of food; that at any rate was how I understood his statements and how I remember them.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q When the witness Diesem spoke of his intention to plead like that, what did he tell you; and what did you answer?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Just a minute. I object for the purpose that there was no ground laid when Diesem was on the stand; it is incompetent.
THE PRESIDENT: I don't think we are concerned with that question. The Tribunal isn't bound by what the defendant asked for in his plea as the testimony has repeatedly shown.
The objection is sustained* BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q May I continue; when Diesem pleaded for a sentence for petty theft, did you consider that correct or wrong.
MR. LAFOLLETTE: I object -
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. From my understanding a defense counsel can plead for anything he wanted to plead for, whether he is right or wrong.
BY DR. BRIEGER:
Q The attitude of Cuhorst toward Diesem on account of that line of defense which he considered wrong has already been submitted.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q May I know from you as to what you know about subsequent events, also concerning Herr Glueck. Will you tell us briefly who Herr Glueck is?
A I knew Herr Glueck personally, and from 1933 until 1945 also professionally I had a lot to do with him. He was a very extraordinary rough character, and always expressed his opinion in rather forceful terms. If complaints were made about an attorney, complaints which he considered justified, and I must use an extension which may be difficult to translatehe balled out the counsel in question, that is to say with harsh words he reprimanded them, harsh words which covered a certain amount of sympathy; and I presume it must have been the same in this case; it happened to me frequently.
THE PRESIDENT: You have described his character, and that is what you wore asked to do. Let me hear the next question.
Q If Cuhorst instead of that had requested a proceeding before a disciplinary court against that man, would that have been more severe?
AA proceeding before a disciplinary court would no doubt have been much more dangerous, simply because at that time the influence from Berlin -- was being felt quite strongly with the disciplinary courts. I know that in some cases instructions came from Berlin requesting that legal remedies were to be used against decisions made by disciplinary courts and which appeared to be too lenient as seen from Berlin.