those requirements, that is to say, they requisitioned the manpower with the agencies who had the manpower and allocated it and that is the General Plenipotentiary for Manpower for Labor Allocation.
QFor this moment we agree that it was not Sauckel who determined this. We will come to it later on again. This morning you testified quite correctly that there was only one Planning Office, Planungsamt. Do you agree that this Planning Office was Kehrl's Planning Office?
AKehrl was the chief of the Planning Office.
QDo you agree that it was this office which did the preparation of the planning for the Central Planning Board, "Zentrale Planung"?
APlanning of what was to be done by the Central Planning Board was a matter for the members of the Central Planning Board; but I explained to you very clearly this morning that the Planning Office had to obtain the data for the meetings and decisions of the Central Planning Board.
QDo you agree that furthermore it was this Kehrl's office which did supervise the execution of the decisions made by the Central Planning Board?
AI must refer again to my precise testimony of this morning which could not possibly be misunderstood and in which I said that this office and this office of the Planning Office was to see to it that the measures of the Planning Office were carried out.
QThank you. I just wanted to have that absolutely clear. Witness, do you know what the position of Dr. Bischoff was within the PLanning Office?
AI don't know any Dr. Bischoff.
QI thought you were very familiar with the "Planungsamt". Didn't you say so before?
AWell I knew some people in the Planning Office, I knew Kehrl, Baute, Dorn and Dorsch, but I don't know any Bischoff.
QYou did not know him? Did I understand you correctly this morning that you testified that the Central Planning Board, "Zentrale Planung", was just a committee and not really an office?
AI explained very clearly that the Central Planning Board was not an administrative machinery but a committee of several persons which met for conferences and decisions. I also named the persons who were members of the Central Planning Board.
QBut you did not mean by this to imply that the Central Planning Board did not have authority of power, did you?
AThe Central Planning Board in the form of its members was a decisive agency and therefore it had the powers.
QDid you ever attend any of the meetings of the Central Planning Board?
AI was present during one conference of the Central Planning Board.
I don't remember if it was the end of 1944 or the beginning of 1945, but anyway I attended one.
QOnly one?
AYes.
QYou testified this morning that in the FAll of 1945 Blocked Betriebe were created against the will of Sauckel, is that correct?
AThat was towards the end of 1943; and from the fact that Sauckel had some strong differences of opinions with Speer that he was against these blocked enterprises.
QNow, is this knowledge on your part or just an assumption? I have to get a quite clear.
AI can explain it very clearly. I know these matters from the conferences of the office chiefs.
QNow, this being a fact and not only an assumption, do you agree then that Speer and Kehrl were stronger than Sauckel, at least in this instance?
Court IV Case XI Comm
AWith Kehrl and Speer? In this instance Speer's will was done. The blocked enterprises became reality.
QAnd did you know that the idea of the Speerbetriebe was Kehrl's idea?
AI remember that Krhrl discussed this matter during the office chief discussions but I don't know whether it was his brain child or not.
QYou testified then about the camp leader warning file of the DAF, Lager Fuehrer Warnkartei -- warning card index. Can you tell me how many people who mistreated slave labor were in this file?
AI don't know that. You would have to ask the competent-
QMaybe you know the names of the plant or the corporations or the management concerned in these cases were also in this file. Do you know that or not?
AAll I know is that there were names of persons who did not behave properly were listed in there. It was not a plant index but a personnel index.
QBut as to the numbers and so forth you don't have any knowledge?
ANo. I think these indexes existed in all districts under the German Labor Front.
QLet's not make it any longer than necessary. You stated this morning that generally you would not call the foreign laborers slaves. Now, I would like you to tell me what you would like to call people who were deported from their own countries, were forced to work under guards, were put behind barbed wite, received very little food, and frequently lots of beatings. What do you want to call that kind of people?
AI talked of a different subject matter this morning, but I am quite prepared to enter into this matter. I explained, and I repeat in order to avoid misunderstandings, very precisely:
Court IV Case XI Comm.
14 A ugust 1948 - A - CG - 14 - 15 - 6 Biolsi - Horn The organization to which I belonged, the German Labor Front, their activity about which I reported to the Armaments Ministry, never had the desire or the intention of making foreign workers into slave workers. And what this organization did was absolutely suitable to prevent this
QAll right -
ANo, no, please I have something more to say -
QGo ahead.
AThe IMT has recognized that because at that time the indictment against the political leaders of the German Labor Front was dismissed from the indictment against the Corps of the Political Leadership,
QYes, that's common knowledge, but we are not dealing here with the DAF, witness, I didn't think that you were testifying for the DAF here, we are concerned with the defendants in you don't have to answer my last question if you can't.
AI was asked this morning what Kehrl in my opinion could have known of these matters.
QI recall, and the record will show, that the foreign laborers could not generally be called slave laborers. But that is a matter of fact and we don't have to discuss it any further. Now we come to the question of Kehrl. Subsequently to the question I just mentioned before you were asked -- could Kehrl know about the tr eatment of labor; and if I understood you correctly you answered - "He could hear something about it in the office". Now mt question to this is, did you mean to say that this was the only source of information available to the defendant Kehrl on these matters?
AAs 1 said this morning, Herr Kehrl was able to got additional information about those matters, to wit, through individual plant inspections. However, I couldn't imagine, and Court IV Case XI Comm.
I don't know, whether at that time Kehrl would have found the time for individual plant inspections.
QNow, in this respect it is not known to you that Kehrl himself was either the chairman or a member of the Aufsichtsrat of at least twenty corporations also at that time?
A -
QJust answer the question. Don't give me any argument. Just answer the question.
AI know he was in various plants; however, I do not know he was in Berlin almost all of the time.
QYou testified this morning that Himmler and the SD did not think Kehrl was reliable, is that right?
AYes.
QNow, witness, if that was so maybe you can tell me why Hitler, or rather Himmler -- let me correct it -- did not throw the defendant Kehrl out of the SS in which Kehrl held the rank of a Bridadier General?
AI couldn't say why Himmler didn't throw Kehrl out of the SS.
All I know is that Speer talked with Himmler personally and Himmler clearly expressed that Kehrl could not be considered reliable; and I received confirmation of this in Kaltenbrunner's statement.
QWere you present at that discussion?
AI talked with Kaltenbrunner personally. In my presence Kaltenbrunner referred to SD reports directed against Kehrl, but when Speer talked with Himmler I was not present.
QThank you. Is it correct that on the 15th of January 1945 you became practically the successor of General Weger?
AI did not become Weger's successor, but at the end of December 1944 as the successor of Mr. Liebel I took over the management of the Central Office, and then in January 1945 I took over within my office questions of labor allocation, plant Court IV Case XI Comm.
evacuations, but all other tasks of the Armaments Office which was headed by General Weger were transferred and sub-divided to the various other offices; some of them, as I said this morning, to the Planning Office.
QSo it is correct, then, that with respect to labor allocation you became in fact the successor of General Weger?
AMy office was competent for questions of labor allocation.
QIs it correct then that you were occupied with the labor allocation for the whole Armaments industry with the exception of the OT?
AAt that time there was to labor allocation for Armaments industry at all, and for the following reason: Armaments manufacture and transportation had been no heavily damaged by air raids that the first manifestation of this was shown in the growing unemployment. Our task was limited to the prevention of exorbitant inductions into the Armed forces and allied matters.
QDo you mean to testify that from the 15th of January 1945 on there was no more labor allocation to the Armaments industry, is that your testimony?
AI don't remember that the plants requisitioned manpower after that period. The only manpower requirements were made by the heavily damaged Reichsbahn, the Reich railroad, and at that time we transferred armaments workers from armaments via Sauckel to the Reichsbahn. In other words, there was no such thing as loabor allocation in the Armaments industry any more as a result of the war.
QYou don't remember about the building of fortifications at that period?
AThe construction of fortifications was not an Armaments task.
QI asked whether you remembered those?
Court IV Case XI Comm.
ANaturally I knew that fortifications w ere built, but the Armaments Ministry as such had nothing to do with that.
QThis morning you testified that you became a member of the NSDAP in 1930.
AYes.
QIs it correct that you became a member of that Party for the first time already in 1922 and remained in the Party until it was forbidden in 1933, is that not correct?
AI was only sixteen at that time and I couldn't possibly become a member of the Party, However, from 1922 to 1926 I was a member of the Grossdeutsche Jugenbund.
QYou did not answer my question. The question was whether you were a member of the NSDAP for the first time in 1922. Can't you answer such a simple question with yes or no?
AThis simple question can be answered very simply: In October of 1930 I became a number of the National Socialist Labor Party.
QSo you would say, then, that your own Party record would be misleading as to these dates, is that correct?
AI don't know any Party index containing such date. I was a member of the Grossdeutsche Jugenbund and, of course, I did serve in the SA at that time but I was not a member of the SA and I was mot a member of the Nazi Party. And for the following reason: I was too young. That was the only reason.
Court 4, Case 11 - Commission I
Q.Is it true that you entered the Algemeine SS in 1931?
A.Yes.
Q.Is it true that you became a Scharfuehrer on the 8 July 1932?
A.Yes. I don't know whether it was July 8. At any rate in 1932 I was a Hauptscharfuehrer.
Q.That was in December 1932; is that right?
A.Yes, prior to the Nazi seizure of power.
Q.Is it true that you became an Unterscharfuehrer in November 1933?
A.I don't know the dates as veil as you do. At least by 1938 I was a Sturmbannfuehrer.
Q.And when did you become an Obersturmbannfuehrer?
A.I never made it. However, during the interrogation I was told that in 1945 I became a Standartenfuehrer but I never received confirmation of this.
Q.Andyou don't even know that on the 20 April 1942 you became an Obersturmbannfuehrer?
A.I couldn't possibly know that because from 20 April on no communications worked in Germany.
Q. 1942, April 1942.
A.No, I don't know that.
Q.You don't know either that on 30 January 1945 you became a colonel in the SS? That was unknown to you also?
A.As I told you just now, I was told during an interrogation that I became Standartenfuehrer in 1945 but I was told this during an interrogation, as I said, and for the rest I don't object to it anyway.
Q.I just asked you whether you knew or you didn't know.
A.I learned it afterwards during my imprisonment at the end of the war.
Q. 1945 you didn't know?
A.No.
Q.Now, then, I have a last question. Maybe you know that. When Court 4, Case 11 - Commission I Hitler, in his testament in April 1945, named you as Minister of Labor did you accept this position or did you refuse it?
A.I read of this appointment in January of 1945 in the Neue Zeitung and I'd appreciate any details you could give me. Unfortunately I don't have any details. I only know these matters from hearsay. Since I read it in the paper it might be true and again it might not be.
Q.Well, I suppose that you -
A.I never asked anybody; no one ever asked me whether I wanted to become minister. I was also never told that I was one.
Q.And you didn't hear about that deal until 1946 in those papers; is that right?
A.I learned it through the publication of Hitler's testament in the newspapers.
MR. KAUFMAN:Thank you. No further questions on the part of the Prosecution.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. LEIS:
Q.Witness, this morning I asked you who fixed the rations for workers, the Betriebsfuehrer or another agency. Will you please answer this Question A little more clearly?
A.The rations were fixed by the competent authorities responsible for the feeding. It wasone of the top levels of the Reich Food Ministry.
Q.Was the Betriebsfuehrer bound to these instructions and regulations with regard to rations?
A.He was bound to these directives because he could not exceed the fixed rations.
Q.Was he similarly bound by the other rationing regulations?
A.The rationing regulations were enforced and everyone was bound by then.
Q.Another question with reference to the Betriebsfuehrers capacity as legal entities. By way of introduction I'd like to read to you the legal Court 4, Case 11 - Commission I provisions from the Law for the Regulation of National Labor, Paragraph 3, Section 2. I quote:
"The entrepreneur or , in the case of legal entities and legal personalities, the legal representatives can entrust a person responsible for some of the management with one of its functions. This must be done if they do not manage the plant themselves."
And I'd now like to ask you what were the affects of such an appointment of a deputy with regard to competency and responsibility?
A.In this way the authorized deputy becomes the person directly responsible for the individual Gefolgschaftsmann.
Q.Then the responsibility is transferred solely to this person?
A.He becomes the person directly in charge of the welfare.
DR. LEIS:That is all.
MR. KAUFMAN:No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COMMSSIONER:Are we finished with this witness now?
MR. KAUFMAN:I think so. There is no defense counsel here anymore.
THE COMMISSIONER:All right. Then the witness will be excused.
(Witness excused.)
THE COMMISSIONER:We have no more witnesses for today?
MR. KAUFMAN:Not that I know of.
THE COMMISSIONER:All right. Then the Commission will recessuntil the further call of the Court.
(The commission recessed, subject to call, at 1425 hours.)
Official Transcript of American Military Tribunal IV in the matter of the United States of America against Ernst von Weizsaecker, et al, defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 16 August 1948, 0900-1645, the honorable William C. Cristianson, presiding.
THE MARSHAL:The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal IV. Military Tribunal IV is now in session, God save the United states of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT:Mr. Marshal, are the defendants in court?
THE MARSHAL:May it please Your Honors, the defendants are all present in the courtroom except Lammers, Weizsaecker, and Bohle, who were excused by the Tribunal; Keppler, Schellenberg, and Stuckart are in the hospital.
THE PRESIDENT:Very well. At this morning's sessions Judge Powers will preside.
PRESIDING JUDGEPOWERS:Doctor?
DR. VON STEIN:Your Honors, the examination of the witness Riecke before the Commissioner was not finished on Fri day last, but will be continued today in Room 196.
For that reason I respectfully request--and, at the same time, I also make this request on behalf of my colleague Dr. Koch-that the two defendants, Koerner and Darre, be excused from attending the session here today and that they be taken to Room 196, Your Honors.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Well, under those circumstances, the defendants Koerner and Darre will be excused and taken to room 196 to attend the Commission hearing.
DR. VON STEIN:Apart from that, Your Honors, I would also like to respectfully request that my client Darre be excused from attending the sessions of Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of this week in order to be able to further continue the work on his defense. Also, in the event that the examination before the Commission does not take up the entire day, I would also request that Darre be excused from attending the session here the rest of the day, for the same purpose.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:And his interests here will be safeguarded, I take it?
DR. VON STEIN:Yes, Your Honor.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Under those circumstances Darre will be excused in order to prepare his case.
DR. VON STEIN:Thank you, Your Honor.
DR. KUBUSCHOK:Your Honors, I respectfully request that the defendant Rasche be excused from attending the session this morning and that he be brought to Room 112, to enable him to continue work on his defense. His interests will be safeguarded in court.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Very well, Rasche will be excused as requested.
DR.RATZ: (Counsel for the defendant Schwerin von Krosigk): Your Honors, I respectfully request that the defendant Graf Schwerin von Krosigk be excused from attending the sessions all day today in order to enable him to continue work on his defense, and I also ask that he be immediately taken to Room 57. His interests will be safeguarded here.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Very well, von Krosigk will be excused as requested and brought to room 57.
DR. GRUBE:Your Honor, may I proceed?
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:You may proceed.
HAND KEHRL (Resumed) DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued ) BY DR. GRUBE:
QHerr Kehrl, at the end of last week we had stopped while discussing the conferences which you had in 1944 on Brussels, Liege, and Paris, and, at the last, you had commeneted upon and had enumerated the various claims put up on the part of the French.
In connection with those conferences which took place at the time, was any definite agreement reached?
ANo, no agreement was reached. The numerical data available and at the disposal of the French were not adequate at that time, and the arrangement was that renewed conferences were to take place in November, and up to November, on the basis of ten results of these conferences, the French were to draft a plan; and I, on my part, was to clarify the matter as to whether the French claims could be fulfilled.
QAs you know, in Prosecution Exhibit 2416, a memorandum has been introduced concerning the conferences in question.
JUDGE MAGUIRE:What book is that?
DR. GRUBE:Document Book 129, Your Honors. BY DR. GRUBE:
QWitness, did I correctly understand you to say that this memorandum which the Prosecution designated as being a plan was merely a draft?
THE PRESIDENT:We don't seem to have that book here, Doctor.
JUDGE MAGUIRE:The Page was looking for it, but couldn't find it.
DR. GRUBE:Your Honor, I told the Page just a minute ago that we would be requiring Documents Books 129 and 124.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Well, for some reason none of the members of the Tribunal have that bo*o apparently we will have to go ahead and do the best we can.
DR. GRUBE:Your Honor, we do have one book in the English translation, if I may take the liberty of making it available to you.
PRESIDING JUDGE POWERS:Very well.
THE PRESIDENT:We have it now; go ahead. BY DR. GRUBE:
QWitness, I will repeat my last question. Did I correctly understand the testimony hitherto rendered by you to imply the following, and may I sum it up as follows?
The memorandum concerning the conferences, which is contained in Prosecution Exhibit 2416, merely represents a draft or a rough sketch for future conferences still to take place?
AIt is neither a memorandum nor a rough sketch or draft; it is what we call a file note, or Aktenvermerk, which renders the contents of the conferences in their main points. It is a file note, destined for inter-office use by the Germans, and this wasn't exchanged by any means with the French. Nothing was put down in writing with the French at that time.
JUDGE MAGUIRE:Well, witness, is that a memorandum of what took place in a conference, or a memorandum of what was to be discussed in the future in a conference?
THE WITNESS:It is both, Your Honor; it outlines what the discussions had been and what was to be done to clarify the situation for the future.
BY DR. GRUBE:
QWitness, you hive just slid that it was in part a memorandum on what had been discussed. Did these discussions lead to a final conclusion, or were they merely preliminary discussions?
AThey were preliminary discussions. In Brussels they were only held with members of the staff of the Military Commander; in Paris there were also discussions with Frenchmen themselves.
QAt the end of the last week you testified that the French made various demands and that you had in mind intervening in favor of having those demands fulfilled. Now, in conjunction with these discussions, did you actually make efforts to have these demands met?
AYes, very intensively. The most difficult request was that France should be treated as an economic unit, because that was a political question which extended far beyond my sphere of influence. I first got the approval of the military commander in Brussels that it would be agreeable to him if the two departments, N*rd and Pas de Calais, which were subordinated to him, should be included in an arrangement that the French had made for France as a whole. Then, I spoke with the Quartermaster General by phone--he was the superior of the competent military commander in the chain of command--and I also spoke with the gentlemen in the Armistice Commission. Finally, agreement was reached on this, that the French economy in this particular instance should not be subdivided into three zones,but that the French Government could enact a regulation for the whole area. That was the most important question for the French, and it also formed a precedent for decisions in other fields as well. It is at least partially to be attributed to this agreement that France was spared all the economic impediments of three zones in economic respects.
The second most difficult problem was that of booty. I hid to turn to the OKW and to the Armistice Commission in this matter of booty. First of all, I made it clear to the OKW that, on the basis of plenipotentiary powers of the Ministry of Economy in the administration of raw materials, I laid claim to all the booty in the name of the Ministry of Economy, for the reason that they would not derive any material benefit from possessing the booty anyway. The question of paying for the booty was a much more difficult problem. This question had already been discussed in the Armistice Commission as one of the French requests. The legal status was almost indubitably in favor of the German construction. After a few discussions, above all with the General Intendant of the Wehrmacht, Haeufer, and the representative of the Ministry of Economy in the Armistice Commission, on agreement was finally reached on two points; First, that the booty should not be transported from France as raw material with the exception of such quantities as had already been transported away, or which were just in the process of being transported from the ports, but that the raw materials should be processed in France on orders placed by Germans; and secondly, that the booty would be paid for in full.
I then continued extensive negotiations with the OKW, with the result that the OKW was prepared to give its approval that in the case of the introduction of general rationing in France, the rationing would likewise apply to all members of the German Wehrmacht in making purchases, and only a slight exception should be made in the case of persons who were entitled to purchase their own clothing. Those were, by and large, the officers. They got a clothing card which allowed them to make certain purchases in France.
So are as the additional requests were concerned, the Wehrmacht insisted only upon two points: If the OKW should promulgate, for all branches of the Wehrmacht, a general prohibition to make purchases, and if orders were to be based only on quotas that they received from me, then this prohibition to purchase must apply also to all other German agencies in France, that is, the Reich labor Service (Arbeitsdienst) the railways, the Reich Post, the police, and so forth. I promised that, and agreed to such a prohibition to purchase with all these other agencies. Secondly, they made the demand that, just as in Germanym the natural raw materials, wool, cotton, and flax, should entirely, or at least predominantly, be manufactured for the use of the Wehrmacht. They elucidated the most fundamental points, and the OKW gave me full powers to represent the interests of the OK W in the future negotia tions with the French and Belgians.
QWitness, you stated before that during the negotiations that you had with the Armistice Commission, above all, and the OKW, which dealt with the processing of the booty, it was agreed that war booty which had already been transported away or which was in the process of being transported away, was not to be included. Let me ask you now, briefly, who transported this booty away, or who was engaged in transporting it?
AA special staff under General Buermann had been set up by the OKW, commissioned to secure and transport the booty found in the ports. This solely concerned stocks found in the ports, that is, no stocks of any sort in factories or warehouses.
QYou stated before that since no sufficient data were available during the discussions in August, which had the nature of preliminary discussions, it had been agreed that at the beginning of November a new discussion should take place.
In November 1940, did you then go to the Occupied Western Territories again?
AYes, I did. The result of the discussions in France was approximately what is to be found in Annex 1 of Document 2418, that is, in broad outlines.
JUDGE MAGUIRE:That is Exhibit 2418?
DR. GRUBE:Yes, Your Honor. BY DR. GRUBE:
QWitness, one question regarding that. This Kehrl Program however was not concluded at that time, was it?
ANo.
QDid you reach any decisions of any sort in these discussions in November?
AYes. I made binding promises regarding the French demands of August, as I have just set forth, and in addition I made promises regarding specific German deliveries to France to a quite considerable extent. These promises were made on the understanding that the French would make certain counterpromises, and the contract of delivery and counter-delivery between France and Germany was based thereon.
DR. GRUBE:Regarding the discussions in August and November 1940 in Paris, may I draw the attention of the High Tribunal to the following Defense documents -- primarily, identification numbers 116, Book 3A, 112 in EA, 140 in 3B. BY DR. GRUBE:
Q.- Witness, in these discussions in November 1940 were there written agreements?
A.- No.
Q.- You said that the plan was concluded under the name of the Kehrl Plan. When did this take place?
A.- 1 February was the date. Between November and 1 February the Office of the Military Commander negotiated with the French agencies, and the content of the contract was established. It was signed by the French State Secretary in the Production Ministry, and by the German military administrative chief, Dr. Michel, in the headquarters in Paris and by the Chief of the Office of the military Commander in Brussels.
Q.- Between your discussion in November 1940 and the signing of this Kehrl Plan, there were then negotiations lasting months between the Germans and the French?
A.- Yes, about eight weeks.
Q.- In Exhibit 2418, as in Annex 1, this Kehrl Plan in February 1941 was reproduced -- you did not yourself sign it?
A.- No.
Q.- When did you first see this Kehrl Plan? That is in Exhibit 2418, Annex 1?
A.- In February the textile expert of the military commander in Paris visited me and showed me the plan and told me how the name Kehrl Plan had come to be. That was a wish on the part of the French who were thus expressing their gratitude for the help that I had given them throughout the negotiations in this whole matter.
JUDGE MAGUIRE:Well, witness, wasn't the plan as actually reduced to a written contract merely carrying out the general objectives and promises and agreements that you had arrived at with the French in the conferences which you conducted?
A.- Yes, your Honor, with minor changes. BY DR. GRUBE:
Q.- What we find in Annex 1 of 2418, this delivery contract of 1 February 1941, that is then the first Kehrl Plan.
A.- Yes.
Q.- Did you examine the admissibility of this under terms of international law?
A.- No, I did not. That was the job of the Military commander, but in this case I even had less doubt as to whether it was admissible under international law than any doubt I might have found in Brussels and this for two reasons. The counterdeliveries from the German side were so considerable that this was really a commercial treaty. Moreover the other partner to this contract was a legal French government who had signed the agreement without any duress.
DR. GRUBE:Regarding the statement of the witness, namely that the examination of the question of international law was the affair of the military commander, let me draw the Tribunal's attention to the testimony of the prosecution witness, Michel, in cross examination on 14 May 1948, when Michel declared during cross examination that the military administrators had legal advisers whose task it was to examine the questions of international law and who were appointed specifically for this purpose, that is, to advise the military commanders. Let me draw your attention further to my Document Identification number 126 in book 3A. This is an affidavit to my document identification number 126 in Book 3A. This is an affidavit by Weniger who corroborates these statements.