This became the competence of the Gestapo alone. Including all connecting questions on informational measures.
Q: Witness, what became of the Office of Cultural Affairs which had been directed by Hoehn and later by Six, that is to say of the Department II/2, of the so-called Domestic Field (Lebensgebret).
A: From this remaining apparatus Ohlendorf now developed Office III, and from 1939 on until 1945 Ohlendorf gave this office its character and its aims and its goals and its ideas.
Q: Witness, can you tell us about the ideas, the loading ideas, according to which Ohlendorf performed his SD work, can you describe this to us briefly?
A: Since I was active in this office of Ohlendorf from the beginning and was active until the end, and since I was the department head of Culture and Science in this office, I can doubtlessly describe this backbone of the office, this Office III, and I must say this right now, Ohlendorf had a religious central idea about human beings which was the center of his thinking, and which he emphasized to us one hundred times during conferences.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you have used the phrase "religious central idea". Do you mean, by that that he was a member of a church and was given to religious worship, or are you using that phrase in a generic sense?
THE WITNESS: It was his inner philosophical religious philosophy.
THE PRESIDENT: You say it was an inner philosophical business. Did you look into his soul?
THE WITNESS: It was an inner philosophy which he
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but you keep saying "inner". What sort of spectacles or apparatus did. you use to look into his inner soul?
I am very anxious to know how you looked into his inner soul.
THE WITNESS: Your Honor, he always told us his thoughts repeatedly and repeatedly and he developed then over a number of years.
THE PRESIDENT: As far as Otto Ohlendorf's inner soul is concerned and his outlook upon life in general, he expressed that attitude from the witness stand with a clarity that you have not yet approached. I don't think that anyone could tell us in better language than Otto Ohlendorf spoke himself just what he thought and felt, so now in your testimony please give us objective facts, what Ohlendorf did, what he said, but don't try to tell us that you roamed about in the inner recesses of his soul, because we don't know that you are capable of doing that.
Q: (By Dr. Aschenauer): Witness, give us practical examples according to which Ohlendorf performed his SD work.
A: I can give concrete examples from the work of this Office III. The contempt for all intellectual things and academicians, on the part of the NSDAP, is well known. Throughout long years of information service the organization of the spiritual man and of cultural accomplishments in the framework of a people has always been brought out again and again, but finally we succeeded to change this evaluation of schools and intellectual things. Goebbels, on the basis of these reports, finally declared himself prepared, by means of a decree of the press conference of the Reich government, to avoid any contemptuous evaluations of sciences or scholars and teachers and to avoid such remarks in press, theater, radio and literature, and to forbid such remarks. I think it was in the fall of 1943 Goebbels invited the high school principles to convene at Heidelberg and he tried to establish contact with the scholars aria to get them to agree to the Party program.
This would not have been possible without the tireless efforts of the Information Service of the SD in which the justification of these intellectuals was always emphasized again and again. When Goebbels became the representative of the Fuehrer for total war, the high schools and universities were to be closed immediately. On the order of Ohlendorf almost all German universities took it upon themselves to defend their scholastic activities and thus we were able to avoid that the intended closing down of all schools would be undertaken in general and would only be done in single instances.
Of course, one cannot state in detail how many young scholars and how great a fraction of the succeeding academic generation were enabled to carry on their work and that they were not destroyed by the war through this measure. When the Speer Ministry decided that research was not inportant for the war, and since scholars were drafted to the Army withoug any questions, the continuous support and collaboration with the Reich Research Office, through this cooperation it was brought about that a Fuehrer decree was issued and this Fuehrer decree ordered that the drafting of research workers would be stopped and that 5,000 research workers and scientists would be brought back to their research institutions from the front lines. If a spokesman for the American foreign office -
MR. WALTON: If it please the Tribunal, I fail to see the relevancy of this line of testimony. I have listened very carefully and I object to this line on the grounds that it does not pertain to the issues involved in this case. If, however, this witness is a character witness, I make no objection, to him stating his opinion of the character of ohlendorf, but I do object to the record showing a dissertation on the cultural history of Germany from the year 1931 to 1945. We are not interested in the cultural history of Germany or in the Information Service of Germany during the war years.
THE PRESIDENT: In this trial?
MR. WALTON: In this trial, yes, Sir.
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer, it must be obvious to you with all the zeal with which you naturally manifest in behalf of your client, and justifiably so, that what this witness is talking about now has no relevancy to the issue and can be of no assistance to this defense. It is just merely a discussion on something which is of interest, but not in this trial, please try to bring the witness directly to the Defendant Otto Ohlendorf, what he did, what he said, and how what he did and said affected him, in so far as the charges in the indictment are concerned. And let me suggest, Dr. Aschenauer, at this juncture for all defense counsel in the preparation of witnesses please, do not fall into the groove or pattern which has apparently been marked out for this witness.
Try to adhere directly to the issue and give the Tribunal facts which will illuminate the issue and not illuminate the whole world as scholastic learning
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, the Defendant Ohlendorf is charged with Count 35 membership in a criminal organization. This activity, this work, which the witness has described as the work of the Defendant Ohlendorf was the activity of the Defendant Ohlendorf in Office III, for which he has been accused. In my presentation of evidence I shall come to the opposition of Ohlendorf against the totalitarian state. For this reason, I also had to use part of the time to explain what Ohlendorf did in his Office III. This is nothing else but the admissible exculpation proof.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, the defendant is charged, in Count III with membership in the SS. Now how does this testimony that Goebbels sent all the students to the front in any way exculpate the defendant from membership in the SS? Now Ohlendorf was or was not a member of the SS. If he was not, that simple statement suffices. If he was, then it must be shown that he was unaware of the criminal purposes of the SS as outlined in the decision of the International Military Tribunal. If that can be shown, then he was exculpated insofar as that count is concerned. Now, will you please try to adhere closely to that very definite narrow issue.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, may I say a few words to that? The Control Council Law No. 10 admits proof of exculpation. It says here that a man can be exculpated if he did not know the criminal intents of the organization. I ask, Your Honor, isn't it a proof of his exculpation if a man worked against the aims seat down by Himmler and other people, namely, the totalitarian state. I want to hear-the proof of exculpation and, therefore, to this restricted extent, I thought I could give the Tribunal a basis on which I could build later on.
If it is sufficient to the Tribunal, I shall continue and discuss the contradictions which arose.
THE PRESIDENT: The difficulty is very obvious. The witness has prepared himself to testify along a certain line and he is having a hard time to deviate from this program which he has already outlined for himself. That is the reason I wanted to admise other defense counsel not to let other witnesses prepare themselves in this manner. He is covering entirely too much territory. We have said that whatever Ohlendorf said and did, which is in any way relevant to Count 3 or the other counts will be admissible. Now let us try to keep in mind the Defendant Ohlendorf at all times. Let us proceed.
Q (By Dr. Aschenauer): Witness, please describe the controversies of Ohlendorf and the leading personalities and give the reasons. disagreements of Ohlendorf on the one hand and Heydrich and Himmler on the other hand. Here we find diametrically opposed disputes in their various goals. Himmler and Heydrich had the aim to take the entire SD and incorporate it very closely into the Security Police and to take the SS and Gestapo, the Criminal Police, and the SD and make out of all of them a State Protection Corps. Opposed to this incorporation of the SD into a State Protection Corps, Ohlendorf objected for years as strenuously as a lion. The final disagreement between Himmler and Ohlendorf ends with a dispute between Himmler and Ohlendorf on the subject of this State Protection Corps. Shortly after Ohlendorf returned from Russia, during a discussion with Himmler, Ohlendorf protested against such a State Protection Corps, which was to protect the Nzai reality, and he objected so severely that Himmler did not want to hear any of this bullying. The incorporation of the SD into such a State Protection Corps was in disagreement with Ohlendorf's basic plans, namely, the position which he had set up for himself, namely, to work for the people, for the nation, for its citizens, and for their wishes and desires, their needs, and their criticisms, and not to work for the totalitarian state.
I may perhaps have exaggerated a little bit -
THE PRESIDENT: No, no. Don't exaggerate. Let's have the facts just as you know them.
THE WITNESS: Yes, yes, Your Honor.
Q (By Dr. Aschenauer): What were the reasons for the dispute with Ley? that is the regimentation of the German man from the cradle to the grave. From those who developed the DAF, beginning with the DAF kindergarten down to the DAF vocational education, even about the regulation of leisure time, in the DAF man was being regimented from cradle to the grave, and he was ordered about from cradle to the grave.
Q. May I interrput you, Witness. I ask you to be brief and only give the essential facts.
A. Against these policies of Ley, Ohlendorf made reports for years and was considered an opponent by Ley himself. Ley complained so continuously and bitterly to Himmler about these SD reports and Himmler did not approve of the work of Ohlendorf, but criticized Ohlendorf as an intellectual beast. He even limited and restricted the Information Service so that Ohlendorf from the middle of the war on was able only to send to Himmler about 1/10 of this critical work against the Nazi reality. Thus the Reich Press Chief, Dietrich, complained about these reports, because the Ohlendorf reports showed the actual popular opinions about these press reports and the Army reports. Thus Goebbels wanted to have Hitler dissolve the SD because when Goebbels gave his speech in the Sports Palace to open total warfare, a speech in which he called on the people with questions; "Do you want total war?" in the extremely critical SD report an out the -
MR. WALTON: May I renew my former objection, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Now we are going to hear a blow by blow account of Goebbels' speech in the Sports Palace and how the audience responded to his various rhetorical questions. Now how does that help us in deciding the question of the guilt or innocence of Otto Ohlendorf?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I don't want to come back to this complex of questions and I shall go into the Jewish question, which is the basis for the prosecution indictment.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes.
Q. (By Dr. Aschenauer) Do you know the attitude of Ohlendorf towards the Jewish problem?
A. Even though the Jewish problem did not belong to the field in which Ohlendorf worked, I can, nevertheless, testify to his concrete opinions and his conduct, as far as the Jewish question is concerned, because in reference to the general political situation about the Jewish problem Ohlendorf would express himself on this problem, and also acted on it.
Ohlendorf's attitude towards the Jews can be gathered from his attitude towards the concept, "people." Jews were people for Ohlendorf also, not German people, that is, but foreign people, but because they were people they were for him justified from the world order and world situation.
Q. Witness, what practical conclusions did Ohlendorf draw from his attitude?
A. Following his practical attitude Ohlendorf judged events of the so-called Crystal Night in November 1938 and he rejected these events in his reports by the Group III D. He stated his attitude against the wearing of the Jewish star, because this was a contradiction to the dignity of the human being. In his economic reports he also stated his objection against the boycott of Jewish business, in 1835 already when the Jews in Germany who held a great number of key positions in the medical field, press field, legal field and so forth, had to leave these positions, because the figures highly exceeded the small percentage of the Jewish population with the German Reich.
Q. Witness, what do you know about a minority statute for the Jews which Ohlendorf worked out?
A. The most important step which Ohlendorf took about the status of Jewry and their position in Germany was his request to Heydrich around 1938 or 1939, to effect a minority statute for the Jews in Germany so that such a minority statute would lay down the rights for this alien group which happened to live in Germany and that such a statute would regulate those rights of the actually undetermined status of Jewry. I know that with this suggestion to Heydrich which Ohlendorf made spontaneously on his part, because he was not even competent to deal with these questions that Ohlendorf was thrown out when he made that suggestion. I witnessed his bitterness, how aroused Ohlendorf was about this brusque refusal, of Heydrich to listen to him. The events did not let Ohlendorf rest in peace afterwards either. Despite the brusque re fusal which he got, about a half year or three-quarters of a year later, Ohlendorf made another attempt to have this minority statute established as a legal regulation, just like the other minorities in Germany had their own autonomy.
Here the result was exactly the same. Heydrich simply refused --
Q. Witness, do you know whether Ohlendorf voluntarily reported for the Eastern campaign, or whether he was ordered to report?
A. Ohlendorf did not report voluntarily for the Eastern campaign. He was ordered to report. Ohlendorf at that time was only honorary head of the office and in his main position he was manager of the Reich Group Trade so that for the time being Ohlendorf was not able to report as Heydrich and Himmler requested, because he was made indispensible for the Reich Group Trade, but during the Polish campaign various incidents must have happened about which I did not hear in detail, but which induced Himmler to rebuke Ohlendorf, which came by way of Heydrich down to Office III, and reads about as follows: Ohlendorf's weaklingsand cowards did not prove satisfactory in Poland. It was about time that these men would be committed in combat and Ohlendorf above all. Heydrich then asked Ohlendorf several times and asked him personally when he would report for the campaign. Ohlendorf objected for the following reasons: He had never worked in the field of the State Police; that he had no experience in Police matters, and, in addition, Ohlendorf had never been a soldier; beyond that, it was against Ohlendorf's nature to direct various units of the State Police and the Criminal Police.
Q. Witness, do you know anything about whether Ohlendorf in the spring of 1941 still worked on the Minority statute for the Jews?
A. I don't know any details about this. Even though I thought about it, I cannot give you the year. I don't know whether it was 1939, 1940 or 1941. I don't know exactly. But Ohlendorf retained this attitude, this known to me from former years.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: The cross-examination, will be taken up after the morning recess. The Tribunal will now be in recess for fifteen minutes.
(A recess was taken)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I made a mistake during the discussion -- and I wish to beg your pardon -- I used the expression "Gestapo State". To explain this -by this I did not mean the organization, and their legal tasks, but only the terminology used today for the Nazi state.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will show that explanation and correction.
DR. SUESS (for the defendant Schulz): Your Honor, I ask that the defendant be excused from the session this afternoon because the defense wants to prepare him for his direct examination.
THE PRESIDENT: The defendant Schulz will be excused from attendance in court this afternoon so that he may confer with his counsel in the preparation of his defense. Now, Mr. Secretary General, will you see that the necessary order gets to the prison authorities so that Schulz will not be brought into Court this afternoon?
DR. SUESS: Thank you, your Honor.
DR. GAWLIK (for the defendant Seibert): Your Honor, I would like to address a few questions to the witness Spengler.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Mr. Spengler, do you know Herr Seibert?
A. Yes, I know Kerr Seibert.
Q. Please state for the record, which of the defendants is Kerr Seibert.
A. From me, the second from the right, in the front row.
DR. GAWLIK: Your Honor, I ask you to note in the record that the witness Spengler identified the defendant Seibert correctly.
THE PRESIDENT: I think perhaps the interpreter stated that incorrectly. isn't that what you intended to say?
DR. GAWLIK: Yes, sir.
THE PRESIDENT: The record will so indicate, that the defendant Seibert has been identified by the witness on the stand, at the present time Spengler. BY DR. GAWLIK:
Q. Since when did you know Herr Seibert, and what do you know about his work?
A. I hav e known Herr Seibert since 1936. He was in the Group III-D, Economics, of the Office III. He was Referent, and later Deputy Gruppenleiter, finally, Gruppenleiter.
Q. How many Gruppenleiters were there?
A. There were four Gruppenleiters.
Q. Was Herr Seibert also Deputy office Chief?
A. No, Herr Seibert was not Deputy Office Chief.
Q. Did Herr Seibert volunteer to work in the Einsatzgruppen?
A. No, there were no volunteers.
Q. What did Herr Seibert do in the Einsatzgruppe?
A. Herr Seibert, like all those who worked in the Einsatzgruppe, was ordered to go there.
Q. Could Herr Seibert have refused to obey this order?
A. No, no more than any other orders we were given.
Q. What would have happened to Herr Seibert if he had not obeyed this order?
A. He would have been arrested and put before a Tribunal.
Q. When Herr Seibert was ordered to Einsatzgruppe-D, did he know, about the work of the Einsatzgruppe?
A. No, no, he did not know about the work when he was drafted to work for the Einsatzgruppe.
Q. What were the reasons that Herr Seibert was drafted to Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. The reasons were as follows: A Chief-III, that is an expert on the news service, was to be taken in, and as Herr Seibert, since 1936, had belonged to this office and therefore had gained a lot of experience, and as the economical questions were important, Herr Seibert was detailed for this duty. Apart from that Seibert was also an officer of the Army, of the Wehrmacht.
Q. What field within Einsatzgruppe-D was Herr Seibert intended to work in?
A. Herr Seibert was detailed by Berlin to work as Leader-III, That is, he was to give SD reports on various subjects, economics, law, and administration, health, culture, and Science.
Q. Witness, what do you know about Herr Seibert's activity with the Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. K know that Herr Seibert carried out his task as leader III because such specialised report were made in the economic field, and, also on ethnic subjects and they were sent to Herr Seibert in Berlin. For example, a report about the position of the Tartars in Crimea, and on their organization, their history, their Estonian origin, and soforth was made.
Q. Would you please repeat on what is your knowledge based as to Herr Seibert's activity in the Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. This knowledge is based first of all on reports which remained in Berlin with Seibert's colleagures; we talked about all of this, and also because in the later COURT II-A CASE IX years I met Herr Seibert almost daily, and we talked about this work and these reports.
Q. Was Herr Seibert deputy of the Chief of Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. Herr Seibert's position as Deputy Chief of Einsatzgruppe-D I don't know about. I knew that he was Chief-III, and in the staff of Herr Ohlendorf, Einsatzgruppe Ghief, I know that.
Q. Then it would have been known to you if Herr Seibert had been deputy of the Chief of the Einsatzgruppe-D?
A. If he had held an official position as Deputy Chief of Einsatzgruppe I would have known about, or I would have heard about it, and, Herr Seibert later on would have told me about it.
Q. Witness, to this reply I submit to you from Document BOOK III-D, page 69 of the German text, and unfortunately, Your Honor, I do not have the English text; it is Exhibit No. 160, Document NOKW-628. This report is from Herr Seibert, signed "By order of"?
A. I see.
Q. Does this not show that Herr Seibert was Chief of Einsatzgruppe-D, and does this not contradict your reply?
A. No, this does not show that Herr Seibert was Deputy Einsatzgruppe Chief, because even I in Berlin signed during the absence of Herr Ohlendorf in the Crimea, I signed all reports of my group "by order of", because each group leader in his field could deputize for the chief, and they signed, "by order of" but this did not make any of us group leaders, deputy chief, Ohlendorf never had a deputy in Berlin in Office-III.
Q. When did you meet Herr Seibert after his commitment in the East?
A. That was when Herr Seibert returned, June 1942.
Q. What do you know about Herr Seibert's activity after this return to Berlin?
A. As previously he again worked in the economic group III-D., and expert reports were made in addition to the economic reports.
Q. Did this economical group apart from their reporting activity have any executive power?
A. No, this group III-D, like the rest of Office-III had no executive authority at all. This executive power was Vested in the State Police and in the Criminal Police, Office-III, and, therefore, Herr Seibert and the group could neither give an order for arrest, nor could they interrogate a person; not even could they officially ask him to a court, they could only invite him for discussion. The only authority which Herr Seibert and the entire Office-III had was the information Service showing the situation in special fields.
Q. Was Herr Seibert, after his return from Russia, Herr Ohlendorf's deputy?
A. No, Herr Seibert never held that position, I must definitely state here that Herr Seibert would have been the last one of the group leaders to be appointed as Deputy Chief of the Office, because he was the youngest one of us. Only in 1944 was Herr Seibert appointed Gruppenleiter, group leader, although he had worked in the economic field since 1936, and since Herr Ohlendorf had been in the office as Office-chief, he conducted the economic departments in III-D.
Q. Witness, you already said that it was customary under Herr Ohlendorf that every group leader signed "by order of." I have one question on this point, was this only used when Herr Ohlendorf was absent at any time?
A. This was not only used when he was absent, but it was generally used, for example, after Herr Ohlendorf had returned, I continuously signed finance department reports "by order of" just, as Herr Seibert did in the economic field.
THE PRESIDENT: Witness, you stated that Seibert was too young to have taken ever a deputyship. How old was he at the time?
A. Herr Seibert, I believe, was born in 1909, I am not quite sure of it, I only know that among us group leaders he was the youngest one.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, Ohlendorf himself was only about thirty-two or thirty-three at the time?
A. I know that, but Herr Ohlendorf had a very good education and training. He had studied law.
THE PRESIDENT: Then your answer should be not that Seibert was too young, but he was too inexperienced?
A. I can say that, too, as well.
DR. GAWLIK: I have no further questions, Your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: Any further cross examination on the part of another defense counsel?
DR. STEIN: for the defendant Sandberger. BY DR. STEIN:
Q. Witness, since when have you known the defendant Sandberger?
A. I believe since about '36, '37, perhaps even '38.
Q. At that time was he in the Reich Security Main Office with you?
A. No, at the time he was not in the RSHA, but he worked in the SD, in Stuttgart, and there he did reporting, expert reporting.
Q. Did you see Sandberger after his journeys after COURT II-A CASE IX the Eastern campaign?
A. Yes. I know Herr Snadberger was appeared there in the RSHA, in Berlin.
Q. How often did this happen?
A. Two or three times, I am not quite sure,
Q. What did he want in Berlin at that time?
A. On one occasion Obersturmbannfuehrer Gengenbach, that was the group leader for law and administration, who dealt with personnel questions in Office-III, I talked to this man, and there I heard that Herr Sandberger urgently requested to return to his specialized SD work in Office-III.
Q. Can you say approximately when this happened, about what year -- what month?
A. I can work that out. When did the Russian campaign start, the year of '41, or the beginning of '42, was it not, and it was a few months after the Russian campaign started, approximately.
DR. STEIN: Thank you, I have no further questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Any other defense counsel? Is the Prosecution ready for cross examination?
MR. WALTON: The Prosecution has no questions to ask this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well, the witness will be allowed to leave the courtroom. He may be escorted from the courtroom.
(witness excused)
THE PRESIDENT: Dr. Aschenauer?
DR. ASCHENAUER: Your Honor, I have finished except for presenting the documents in the submission of my evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Dr. Aschenauer, as I have indicated on several occasions, I do hope that you will get to work at once on your own documents that you intend to present.
DR. ASCHENAUER: I shall hand in the document books, as the affidavits arrive and state when my documentary material will be ready. The first document book I shall hand in at the beginning of next week. I shall hand in the translation.
THE PRESIDENT: Very well. Dr. Gawlik are you ready to proceed with the defendant Naumann?
DR. GAWLIK: I am prepared to continue, but the defendant Naumann is not here. I believe he is just coming.
THE PRESIDENT: He will be brought in immediately. Dr. Gawlik, through no fault of your own, and we are sure you are not trying to conceal your client from the Tribuanl, they brought over the wrong defendant. They brought here Blobel instead of Naumann. It would take a little of time to correct this error, and to make the correct substitution, so we will take advantage of that time, and we will now recess for the regular lunch period, and reconvene at 1:30 o'clock.
(Whereupon recesswas taken to 1330 hours, 16 October 1947) (The hearing reconvened at 1335 hours, 16 October 1947.)
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal is again in session.
DR. SCHWARZ: Dr. Schwarz for the Defendant Joost. Tribunal permit the Defendant Joost to be examined after the Defendant Schulz?
THE PRESIDENT: Is counsel for Defendant Schulz here?
DR. SUESS: Dr. Suess for the Defendant Schulz. this. If the examination of the Defendant Joost is now going to be postponed, we have no objection against this.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand it then that counsel for the Defendant Schulz is prepared to proceed with the defense case upon the termination of the case of Neumann?
DR. SUESS: Pardon me, your Honor, but I didn't get this.
THE PRESIDENT: I understand that counsel for the Defendant Schulz is prepared to proceed immediately after the termination of the Naumann case?
DR. SUESS: Yes, your Honor.
THE PRESIDENT: And counsel for the Defendant Joost will be prepared to proceed immediately after the termination of the Schulz case?
DR. SCHWARZ: Yes, your Honor. I thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You are very welcome indeed.
DR. SCHWARZ: May I also make the request that the Defendant Joost be excused from tomorrow's session so that I can discuss his defense with him?
THE PRESIDENT: The Defendant Joost is excused from attendance at tomorrow's sessions so that he may confer with his attorney.
DR. SCHWARZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You are welcome.