THE PRESIDENT: I don't want you to put the burden on the Tribunal all the time, but now you want to know what happened to the Defendant after he recovered from his illness, so just ask him that question. Just ask him what happened after his illness.
Q. (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, was the Defendant Sandberger frequently on official trips?
THE PRESIDENT: We'll let you get away with that. That is a very leading question, but we'll let you got away with it.
A. I have already answered that Dr. Sandberger was frequently on the road and that in order to speak to him, one had to make a previous appointment.
THE PRESIDENT: You recall, Witness, that you also answered that you did see him every two or three days.
THE WITNESS: Yes, as long as he was present, I saw him every two or three days.
THE PRESIDENT: Please, proceed, Dr. Von Stein.
Q(By Dr. Von Stein) Was Sandberger frequently absent from Estonia?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, now you have to first find out if he knows where the defendant went when he was absent from Reval. You see, you presuppose that he knows where the defendant went and we have no way of knowing whether he knows or not.
DR. VON STEIN: I will ask him later how he knows.
THE PRESIDENT: No, you ask him first.
Q. (By Dr. Von Stein) Witness, I shall stop talking about the theme of Sandberger's absence for the moment and I shall come to another subject. What do you know about the attitude of Sandberger about the question of the equal status of the Estonian people and what examples can you give for that?
A. On the part of German officials, we Estonians were considered very much inferior to the Germans. Dr. Sandberger was in favor of considering us equal and he was one of the few who conducted himself in this manner toward Estonians. After the occupation of Estonia by the German Army and after the introduction of the civilian administration, the tendency began in Estonia to have all the economic enterprises in Estonia taken over by Germans and to discuss Estonians, at least in -
MR. GLANCY: One moment please: Again, Sir, on the basis of relevancy, we see no connection between his testimony and the charges raised against the Defendant Sandberger.
THE PRESIDENT: That does seem a little general, Dr. Von Stein, a discussion on the economic situation of Estonia.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, my question only said that he was to tell us about the attitude of Sandberger in his fields in Estonia and that he should give us examples for this.
THE PRESIDENT: You asked him his attitude towards Estonians.
DR. VON STEIN: Yes, that is connected Your Honor, with his activity which he carried out in Estonia.
PRESIDENT: Would you not deny that he had many activities in Estonia. What we are faced with is whether or not he executed Jews, Communists, gypsies, and other social elements, not his attitude toward different classes of people with whom we are not concerned here.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, if the question is doubtful of whether Sandberger ordered the execution of gypsies, Jaws, and communists, then it is important to determine how his attitude was in general, whether one could imagine Sandberger doing such things at all, and in order to establish this character of Sandberger, I asked the witness this question.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Von stein, you see the difficulty is, this, Dr. Sandberger's attitude toward the Estonians as such could be a very commendable one, and yet that in itself Would not exclude the possibility that he executed Jews, so it has no relevancy. If you want to ask him "what was Dr. Sandberger's character, as a gentle person, as a kind person," just that general question, that is permissible, but to ask him his attitude toward the Estonians or toward the Finns, or toward the Lithuanians would not be of any assistance to the tribunal. BY DR. VON STEIN:
Q. Witness, how would you judge Sandberger's character, and what did you hear from other people about how they thought about Sandberger?
A. On the basis of my official experience with Dr. Sandberger, I can say that he was very correct toward us and that he was very accommodating and just towards us. I believe that it might be a good illustration from the Estonian side if I say that Professor Uncorts, the last Estonian Prime Minister and the center of all nationalistic circles, said on the occasion of Dr. Sandberger's recall he was a politician and no policeman; It is a shame that he left for there might possibly be a police regime succeeding him.
Q. Witness, in order to avoid mistakes, I would like you to describe the organization and the competence of the Estonian administration in the various periods of time.
MR. GLANCY: Just a minute. I do not believe the he has as yet qualified as an expert, it has not been shown what position he held and, therefore, we have no way of knowing what his qualifications are to answer that question.
PRESIDENT: Well, there is an even greater fault, and that is the question is entirely too general.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, as for the objection which the Prosecution raised, I mentioned-
PRESIDENT: Well, don't bother about his objections, be worried a little bit about what the Tribunal said. The question is too general, he can't answer it in any way as the question is now.
DR. VON STEIN: About the question of competence, I consider it very important to be clarified in the procedure of this trial.
PRESIDENT: Well, Dr. Von Stein, put a specific question and then we will determine whether he can answer it or not. BY DR. VON STEIN: ties until the 22nd of June 1941?
PRESIDENT: Well, that is too general. In the first place, Sendberger wasn't there before June 1941.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, this is only a brief question, and I only want to briefly note the developmental history of these authorities so that we can get a picture of what power these authorities had later, during the German occupation.
PRESIDENT: He already testified when he was here several days ago as to how first Estonia was free, then the Russians took over the country, then the Russians withdrew--we have that history. Proceed, Dr. Stein. BY DR. VON STEIN: was installed, that is, until the 20th of September 1941, was the Home Guard and the police entitled to undertake arrests and investigations or rather, did they have a right to do that?
A. Yes, as organs of the German field command, they did that.
Q. Witness, in the first few weeks of the civil war, according to your description, there was a great mixup. I now ask you, did Sandberger ever express the desire to you to restore orderly conditions as soon as possible in the Question about the investigation of communists?
MR. GLANCY: This, too, we consider leading, but beside that, we have the objection again of relevancy. We don't see the connections yet, Sir.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, Sandberger said on the witness stand that the proceedings against the communists were all reviewed. Whether this is the case -
PRESIDENT: Why don't you just ask him directly what procedure, if any, was established by the Estonian Government to dispose of cases of individuals arrested for political activity?
DR. VON STEIN: Now Your Honor, the question was not put this way.
PRESIDENT: well, that is the trouble, it wasn't put that way.
DR. VON STEIN: The witness was the highest official of his country. Sandberger came into this country and he found it in a condition of civil war. I now would like to know from the witness what-
PRESIDENT: You have used the phrase, "civil war" very often. What civil war was there in Estonia?
DR. VON STEIN: After the withdrawal of the Red Army when the people of the Home Guard came out from the woods and exercised retaliation against the communists who had murdered members of their families and had committed other acts of violence, these conditions were described by the witness as "civil war", and in order to alter these conditions, a conference took place between Sandberger and this witness. BY THE PRESIDENT:
Q. Witness, was there civil war in Estonia?
A. Yes, on the part of the Estonian population there-
Q. I asked you a question, was there civil war in Estonia?
A. Yes.
Q. What is a civil war?
A. A civil war is a war between two, different segments of the population who have different political opinions.
Q. You must have two difference Governments, must you not?
A. The Estonians who were anti-communists considered the government as continuing to exist, they claimed it could he only prevented by communist violence to continue. Even today the Estonian republic is recognized by the United States of America, and not the annexation by the Soviet Union. Thus there was another power outside of the communist power, but it did not organize this war because it could not exercise any power.
Q. Witness, let's find out something about you. What are you in Estonia right now, if anything?
A. Right now, I am nothing.
Q. Where do you live?
A. In Austria.
Q. Did you ever hold office in Estonia?
A. Yes.
Q. What office did you hold?
A. My last position was chief of the Estonian administration from 1941 to 1944 --September 144.
Q. Now, when you say "chief of the Estonia Administration", what do you mean, what was the name of your office--were you the Prime Minister, were you the Chancellor--what were you?
A. No. It was forbidden by the Germans to have an Estonian Government in action.
Q. Where were you prior to 1941?
A. In June 1940, as I have already said, I was ordered by the president of the state to represent Estonian interests during the German occupation, and I was ordered to do this by the Estonian liberation committee in May.....
Q. In June 1940?
A. Yes, end of June 1940, immediately after the communists came into power.
Q. And the Estonian government sent you where?
A. The Estonian president ordered me in some way which I had to find myself to get out of Estonia and to take up contact with German authorities in case that Germany might start war with Soviet Russia and Estonia might come under German occupation.
Q. You came into Estonia with the Einsatz-Gruppe, didn't you?
A. No. I have already said that Dr. Von Kleist made it possible for me to make this trip by negotiating with the army, and I came to Estonia on the l6th of July 1941.
Q. Did you know Dr. Stahlecker?
A. No. With Von Kleist Herrn Petersen of Herrn Von Kleist I came to Estonia.
Stahlecker, and let's see if this refers to you. It says, "In an agreement with the RSHA the action group brought with them the Estonian Dr. Mae as presumptive political advisor for the Estonians". Are you the man they referred to here?
my name was mixed up with the name of Lieutenant Colonel Tildre, for he was the political advisor.
Q Your name was mixed up with that of whom? was the political advisor.
Q Well, you think then this does not refer to you? German officials between 1940--between June 1940 and July 1941, is that correct? into Estonia?
Q Well, you know the German forces were going to enter Estonia? Russia and Germany would begin and that Germany--this was the opinion of the president--would be at first victorious and Estonia would come under German occupation.
PRESIDENT: You may proceed, Dr. von Stein. BY DR. VON ST$IN:
Q Witness, in a Prosecution document the expression "concentration camp custody" is used. Was there a concentration camp in Estonia?
A No. There were only prisons in Estonia, but it was generally customary with Germans that they used expressions which were current with them and they were such expressions then, but actually there were no concentration camps.
minated communists were released? es?
A It was provided that a so-called "Board of Pardons" was to submit these applications to the office of Dr. Sandberger and the Commissioner General Litzmann would then announce them.
Q Who did the work in these agencies?
Q Do you know how these applications were processed? embitterment against communists to avoid implicating guiltness people-innocent people? the legislation of the Estonian Republic possessed a cultural autonomy?
A Yes, that is correct. The Jewish group according to the constitution -
MR. GLANCY: One moment; again, Sir, we cannot see the connection with the charges that are connected against the defendant Sandberger. Again we object on the grounds of its relevancy. What possible connection Jewish autonomy can have to the fact as to whether or not the Defendant Sandberger executed these people is not relevant to the Prosecution.
PRESIDENT: In addition to that, it is very confusing now. Here the witness is to telling us the local legislature was very favored to the Jews, and a moment ago he said that when Jews and communists were released that the population was angry.
However, aside from that, and perhaps he only said communists, it is really not germane to the issue, Dr. Von Stein. He is giving us a lecture on Estonia, its history, its culture, and so on, but it is rather far-fetched. BY DR. VON STEIN. 1940-41 members of the Jewish group in Estonia were active in the NKVD and the destruction battalions?
MR. GLANCY: Again, Sir, anything that preceded Sandberger's reign in Estonia and is unconnected we cannot see the relevancy of. Sandberger is charged with criminal acts, war crimes, and crimes against humanity in Estonia during a certain period of time. We would like to see the connection with Sandberger, with Sandberger alone. Collateral matters such as here are, while very interesting, not germane, as the Court has phrased it, with the issue at hand.
THE PRESIDENT: The objection is sustained. BY DR. VON STEIN: September 1941 on competent for all people in Estonia?
A No. The Estonian administration was not competent for members of the German Army, for Reich Germans, for ethnic Germans, for Jews, and for foreigners. the synagogue in Reval was destroyed? in Reval was completely intact?
A Yes. It was respected like any church. BY THE PRESIDENT: relations with churches that he was interested in the activity in the churches in Estonia--did that include contact with the synagogues?
A I do not know. I know that he maintained contact with the Estonian Luthern Bishop and the Greek Orthodox Metropolitan. Those are the two large confessions in Estonia.
Q Was the synagogue in Reval a pretty large synagogue?
A I do not know any standard. It was the only synagogue in Estonia?
Q The only one in all of Estonia? synagogue? and the other denominational clergy, why don't you know whether he contacted the Rabbi of the synagogue? they told me so.
Q As, and is it bee use the Rabbi didn't exist that he didn't tell you about any contact with the synagogue?
Q You said that he maintained contact with the churches. In making that statement dod you exclude the synagogue--did you in making that statement assume that the synagogue was not a church? we had many churches -- very many small churches, but the Lutheran and the Greek Orthodox are always meant by "churches", and outside of those there are quite a number of small chruches which are not included, in this answer. in your general term "churches"? Is that right, you excluded the synagogue from your answer?
Q You excluded the synagogue?
Q How many Jews were there in Estonia?
Q You excluded all them in your answer on churches? most Jews in Estonia with whom we were on good terms, had withdrawn together with Russian troops, there were very few Jews there at that time, and the Jewish chruch, the synagogue as a guilty was there, but the community as such was practically nonexistent.
Q Did you know that Sandberger int rmed all the Jews of Estonia?
A I did now know that at that time. I asked the Commissioner General Litzmann where the Jews who had been in Estonia had been put for this, after all, was a matter of our fellow citizens. The Commissioner General answered me that the Jews and foreigners had been interned and he pointed to the decree that the Estonian Administration was not competent for Reich Germans, ethnic Germans, Jews and foreigners.
Q Well, you did know that they were interned? been installed.
Q And di you make any complaints about this?
A Yes. I spoke about this matter with the Commissioner General, for, as I said, these were our fellow citizens, and if they were interned, they had to be able to represent their interests, interests which citizens generally have and which are to be fulfilled in the various civilian questions. But the Commissioner General answered me that all these questions have nothing to do with the Estonian administration and according to the decree which I have mentioned it was our duty to refer all questions up to legal decisions, concerning Reich Germans, Ethnic Germans, Jews, or foreigners to the German authorities.
Jews? learned that he was the one who actually interned them? you?
A No. I interested myself for them. had disappeared from the streets of Estonia?
A No, not him. I asked the Commissioner General. you had with him every two or three days to take an interest in these follow citizens who had dissappeared from the life of Estonia? days, did you ever say to him: "Dr. Sandberger, the Jews have dissappeared from Estonia, I heard they were interned; I hope that their citizenship rights are protected," did you ever say anything like that to Sandberger?
A No. I reserved their rights, as far as the General Commissioner as bearer of the German authority is concerned, I spoke for their rights as far as the General Commissioner is concerned.
Q You never spoke to Sandberger about the Jews in any way?
PRESIDENT: The Tribunal will be in recess until 1.50.
(A recess was taken until 1350 hours.)
(The hearing reconvened at 1345 hours, 17 November 1947)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. VON STEIN: Your Honor, I have no further questions to put to this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Any defense counsel wish to cross examine? Does the Prosecution desire to cross examine?
MR. GLANCY: May it please the Tribunal, the Prosecution has no desire at all to question this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. If you will wait just a minute or two to see if any defense counsel might come in who might have the desire to cross examine. Is Dr. Gawlik here? Yes, here he is.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Dr. Durchholz for the defendant Schulz. Your Honor. Before the case is commenced or so started with the defense, I intend to submit my documents to the Tribunal in the two Document Books I and II. I assume that Dr. Hochwald of the Prosecution will be present. He is being notified just now, so he is coming. Before the case is started again, therefore, I would like the Tribunal to permit me to submit my documents.
THE PRESIDENT: By all means you will be so permitted. The witness Mae will now be excused. (witness excused).
MR. WALTON: If Your Honor please, as I understand the answer of the attorney for the defendant Schulz on the question he wants to submit document books, I just want the record to show that since Dr. Hochwald is familiar with the subject matter. I would like to reserve for him any objections to be made later.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that they had already sent for Dr. Hochwald, so he may be present as the document books are being presented.
MR. WALTON: I am sorry, I didn't understand it so.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, Mr. Walton. Dr. Durchholz, have you already submitted a copy of the document books I and II to Mr. Hochwald.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Yes, Your Honor.
MR. GLANCY: I expect Dr. Hochwald momentarily, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Does the Tribunal have copies of the books?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: So far as I know the Tribunal has already received these two document books.
THE PRESIDENT: You may now proceed, Dr. Durchholz.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Your Honor, I herewith submit the defense documents for the defendant Schulz. They are Document Books I and II, and I should like to submit the documents in the following order: Under Roman I they are documents which refer to the activity and the promotion of the defendant Schulz within the police department. Under Roman II are the documents which refer to his activity as a police official and a police officer in Bremen during the years of 1923 until 1939 inclusive. Under III are documents which refer to his activity in Gratz for the year 1938. IV: documents referring to his activity in Reichenberg in 1939; V: documents referring to his activity in Hamburg, from 1940 to 1941; VI: documents which refer to his activity as a leader of Group I-B in the RSHA, and as a commander of the Leader-School, or Fuehrerschule of the Security Police in Charlottenburg in 1941 until 1942: VII: documents refering to his activity in the Russian campaign; as leader of Einsatzcommando-V from June until 21 September 1941; VIII: documents refer to his activity as the leader of Group I-A and Office-I in the RSHA from 1942 until 1944, and, finally, IX: documents refer to his activity in Salzburg as commander of the local Security Police Office from 1 April 1944 until the capitulation in May 1945. I may draw the attention of the Tribunal to the fact that the page numbers in the document books as I quote them are also simultaneously the German and English numbers, as the page numbers, etc. are exactly the same in both document books.
the Tribunal. In Document Book I, page 95 I offer as Exhibit No. 1, the Dokument No. 26, which is the dokument of 25 November 1945, concerning the employment of the Defendant Schulz as police official, Hauptwachtmeister. The next document in Document Book I on page 96 is Exhibit No. 2, Document No. 27, that is document dated 25 August 1931 on the promotion of the Defendant to the rank of Polizei-Oberleutnant, that is lieutenant of police. The next document is in Book No. I, on page 97, Exhibit No. 3, Document No. 25, which is the dokument of 29 January 1934, concerning the promotion of the Defendant to a police captain. The next is in Document Book I, on page 98, as Exhibit No. 4, Document No. 29. It is a document dated 26 April 1938, about the transfer of a job as Regierungsrat with the police guard at Bremen. The next is in Document Book No. I, on page 99, as Exhibit No. 5, Document No. 30. This is document dated 8 June 1938, concerning the transfer of the Defendant Schulz to the State Police Office in Gratz, and transfer of this particular office as a subordination. On Page 100 of Document Book No. I, Exhibit No. 6, Document No. 31, which is referring to transfer of 31 May 1939, according to which the Defendant Schulz is appointed to the job in the State Police Office in Reichenberg. The next is in Document Book No. I, on page 101, Exhibit No. 7, Document No. 32, that is the document of 12 April 1940, according to which the defendant was appointed as Commissar Inspector of the Security Police of the military District 10 in Hamburg. Furthermore, in Document Book No. I, on page 102, Exhibit No. 8, Document No. 33, that is the document of 10 July 1940, according to which the defendant is being appointed Oberregierungsrat, Senior Government counsel, in Hamburg. The next is in Document Book I, page 103, Exhibit No. 9, Document No. 34, document dated 28 January 1941, according to which the defendant is promoted to Lt. Colonel. The next in Document Book No. I, on page 104, Exhibit No. 10, Document No. 35, it is document dated 14 February 1941, according to which the defendant is being appointed as group leader in the Office I in the RSHA in Berlin.
Furthermore, in Document Book No. I, on page 105, Exhibit 11, Document No. 26 it is document of 22 February 1941, according to which the Defendant Schulz is promoted Colonel of the Police. Schulz in May 1945, submitted to the American CIC all the original documents and the documents which I have submitted toddy are the remainder of these documents which he got back in Nurnberg; the others were missing.
MR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, I would like to know whether Dr. Durchholz intends to submit Document No. 39.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: This will come later, the document which the Prosecutor just mentioned. I shall submit it in connection with the documents concerning the Russian campaign. This is proof material or consisting mainly of affidavits which I shall break down to the following: They were given (a) by members of offices, (b) by political opponents.Concerning Point II, I submit the following questions:
MR. HOCHWALD: If Your Honor please, as to this affidavits I want to make a statement. We, of course, have no objection against the offering of these affidavits but we have the reservation, of course, of the right to make an application for the cross examination of one or the other of the file.
THE PRESIDENT: That reservation can be held by every attorney before the Tribunal.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: This is Document Book No. I, page 1, Exhibit No. 12, Document No. 1, which is an affidavit of a criminal senior clerk, Friedrich Rietstaedt. I would like Your Honors to take Document Book No. II. I regret very much not to be able to go through the documents as they come up, that is, Document Book No. I, and then Document Book No. II, but I don't want to disrupt the connections, to current compiling the documents was unfortunately technically impossible, and, I, therefore, ask the Tribunal and also the Prosecution to follow me in this way.
In Document Book No. I, on page 107, it is Exhibit No. 13, which is Document No. 39. It is an affidavit of the criminal commissar, Hans Hafemann. The next document in Document Book No. II, is on page 11, is Exhibit No. 14, Document No. 40, which is an affidavit of the driver Hans Wuelfers. Further, in Document Book II, on page 137, is Exhibit No. 15, Document No. 46, which is an affidavit of the criminal clerk, Alfred Schwarting. Furthermore, in Document Book No. II, on page 114, is Exhibit No. 16, Document No. 41. It is an affidavit of the criminal clerk, Ernst Mueller. Also in Document Book No. II, on pane 115, is Exhibit No. 17, Document No. 42. That is an affidavit of the criminal senior assistant Heinrich Schmitzger. In Document Book II, on page 127, is Exhibit No. 18, Document No. 44, which is the affidavit of the criminal clerk Karl Ripken. In Document Book II, on page 133, is Exhibit No. 19, Document No. 45, which is the affidavit of the criminal clerk, Heinrich Korte.
I would like Your Honors to take up Document Book No. I, on page 23, Exhibit No. 20, Document No. 9, which is the affidavit of the former Police Wachtmeister Karl Roehrssen. In Document Book No. II, on page 179, is Exhibit No. 21, Document No. 60, an affidavit of a former police senator of Bremen, Theodor Laue. I should like this witness not to be mixed up with the government president (Regierungspraesident) Dr. Wolfgang Laue.
THE PRESIDENT: What is a police senator, just for our information, what is the office? I have never heard of it before, a police senator?
DR. DURCHHOLZ: Bremen is known as a town of the State or a Free City, and in that sense a police senator in Bremen is an equivalent for Minister of Interior, he was called a police senator there, and it is again so now.
He is called so in the Free German Hanseatic towns, and Hamburg, Bremen and Luebeck today have this same officialship.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, thank you.
DR. DURCHHOLZ: In Document Book No. I on page 36 I offer as Exhibit No. 22, Document No. 13. It is an affidavit of Marguere the Obenauer. In Document Book No. II, on page 12, is Exhibit No. 23, which I offer as Document No. 4. That is the affidavit of Elsa Tronnier. In Document Book No. I, page 14, Exhibit No. 24, Document No. 5, is an affidavit of Sophie Budelmann. In Document Book No. I, page 16, Exhibit No. 25, Document No. 6, is an affidavit of Betty Hickstein. In Document Book No. I, page 18, Exhibit 26, Document No. 7, is an affidavit of Margarethe Kettler.
Now follows an exhibit in Document Book No. II, on page 125, as Exhibit No. 27, Document No. 43. That is the affidavit by Marianne Melchers. Also in Document Book II, on page 186, is Exhibit No. 28 Document No. 63, which is an affidavit of a former Public Prosecutor in Hamburg, Dr. Wilhelm Stegemann, with whom the Defendant Schulz had close permanent official contacts, and, the last document concerning this point is in Document Book No. II, on page 42, Exhibit No. 29, Document No. 14, which is an affidavit of a merchant in Bremen by the name of Verges, a leading Free Mason. All these witnesses confirm briefly the general human attitude of the Defendant Schulz, his absolute tolerant attitude towards political opponents; the same attitude towards the Jews, his open refusal of taking measures against the Jews, e.g. for the reason of their being Jews. Furthermore, his objection to these so-called Jewish pogroms in 1938; his attitude towards the church; his absolute moderate political altitude; his absolute incorruptibility, and impartiality; his attitude towards the questions of protective custody; also his care for the welfare of those in protective custody, and their families during and after the protective custody, and, finally, the respect he was held in by all his subordinates, and by his superiors, and even by political opponents.
Concerning this last point I shall submit a number of affidavits by political opponents. In the Document Book No. I, on page 6, is Exhibit No. 30, Document No. 2, which is the affidavit of a school director of Bremen, Oskar Drees, a leader of a social democratic papter, Reichsbanner, and today the editor of a very important political social democratic paper. Furthermore in Document Book No. I, on page 8, Exhibit No. 31, Document No. 3, which is an affidavit of Albert Meyer.