Ask your next question.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q. Please state the practical cause how these letters happened to be written. Due to the decision of the court, you do not have to discuss the contents any more.
A. The method for writing such letters had already been established long before I entered the Ministry of Justice. If cases accumulated in one district, the President of the District Court of Appeals who was concerned received a letter so that in future cases a general just sentencing, as it happened in the entire Reich, would take place.
THE PRESIDENT: Why did you write this particular letter? Just ask him why he wrote the particular letter shown in Exhibit 178.
THE WITNESS: These cases had been collected in the Referat -- in the Department -- and then they were reported to the Minister and the Minister determined whether such a guidance letter was supposed to be written. In these two cases of Stuttgart and Hamburg, Franke and Vollmcr, the Department Chief, reproted to the Minister about the jurisdiction exercised by these District Courts of Appeal and suggested to compile the most extreme cases and to call them to the attention of the Presidents of the District Courts of Appeal. The Minister approved of this suggestion and in addition to that determined that I had to sign these letters. That in these letters, the first person singular "I" was always used, is the accepted official style. To that extent I may refer to Exhibit 48, 94, 95, 96, and 99 in which simply Referents and associates also write in the first person singular, although the letter bears the letterhead of the Reich Minister of Justice, and they sign it personally.
DR. SCHILF: I believe we have to interrupt. I believe the Tribunal wants to recess.
THE PRESIDENT: We will recess until one-thirty this afternoon. May I ask counsel how much longer he anticipates that his direct examina tion of this witness will continue if permitted?
DR. SCHILF: Your Honor, I shall finish during the course of this afternoon -- at least I hope so.
(A recess was taken until 1330 hours.)
AFTERNOON SESSION (The hearing reconvened at 1330 hours, 11 July 1947.)
HERBERT KLEMM - Resumed DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued) BY DR. SCHILF: (Attorney for Defendant Klemm)
Q. Herr Klemm, in regard to the two guidance letters to Hamburg and Stuttgart, were the judges who pronounced these sentences, and who had aroused the disfavor of Thierack, supposed to be called to account personally, or were measures supposed to be taken against them?
A. That was not supposed to be done in any case. It would have been neither in accordance with the intentions of the Ministry nor was it the meaning of such a guidance. The president of the district court of appeals, Hamburg, who was requested at the end of the guidance letter to speak to the judges in the appropriate manner, that was what it says literally in the letter, could handle it directly; as the official superior, he did not use this letter at all; but within the framework of a community of work within the NS Lawyers League, that is on a purely comradeship basis and not as a superior, he spoke about these matters; and even less could the president of the district court of appeals in Stuttgart issue measures to the individual judges personally, or reproach them, because this letter was expressly addressed to him, at the end it says that "you, Mr. president of the district court of appeal should call direct and special attention to these problems." There is also a circular letter by the Ministry of Justice which is known and which emphasizes again and again that the independence of the judges should not be touched.
Q. But in the Stuttgart case the names of the participating judges were listed. What was the purpose of that?
A. Of the twelve sentences which are mentioned in the Stuttgart letter, nine had been pronounced when different members were sitting in the court. For that very reason the names were listed to show that the issue was not the failure of one individual judge, but that the general jurisdiction of the district court of appeal of Stuttgart in matters of undermining military strength was not in accordance with the wishes of the Reich level and the needs of the time.
Q In that connection the name of the co--defendant Cuhorst is mentioned. Did you know at the time the then President Cuhorst?
A No, his name did not mean anything to me.
Q Did you know that the then senate president Cuhorst was also president of the special court of Stuttgart; and, was the guidance letters supposed to criticize the jurisdiction of the special court at Stuttgart?
A I did not know the jurisdiction of the special court of Stuttgart at all. That the same person was presiding judge of the special court and president of the senate of the district court of appeal was not known to me at the time.
Q I have to discuss two more documents with you which are a result of this context; these are Exhibits 209 and 210. Exhibit 209 is NS485, in Document Book III-K; and Exhibit 210 is NG-489, also in Document Book III-K. These are two sentences pronounced by the special court of appeal, Stuttgart. I would like to ask you whether these two documents refer to cases which were connected with the guidance letters sent to Stuttgart.
A No. This case is from the time which was one and three-quarters of a year before - that is almost two years before that time, and at a time when I was not yet under secretary. Also, these cases were not concerned with undermining of military strength; I did not even know the case.
Q One final question in that context. In the two so-called guidance letters, especially in the one to Stuttgart, mention is made of the fact that an extraordinary objection was supposed to be raised. Do you know anything about whether that was done?
A The sentences were not sent to the Oberreichsanwalt with a request to raise the extraordinary objection, but with the instruction to examine whether it would be worthwhile to raise an extraordinary objection. In neither of those cases, neither in the guidance letter to Hamburg or to Stuttgart, the problem was the changing of prison sentences to death sentences, but the questions were merely prison terms and whether they should be increased, but still remain prison sentences. Thus, the Oberreichsanwalt was not instructed to raise an extraordinary objection. As far as I know at the time, the Oberreichsanwalt in the cases which were sent to him for examination refused to register an extraordinary objection; and, as far as I know, the minister was satisfied with those results of the examination.
Q With that we have concluded the question of the guidance letters. I now come to a document which was also submitted against you. That is Exhibit 494; that is NG-9521; supplement volume of Document Book III-B. This refers to the order for the establishment of civilian courts--martial. The Prosecution asserts that this was an illegal law, and you are made responsible for it. Please explain to the Tribunal -
THE PRESIDENT: What exhibit number is that?
DR. SCHILF: 494.
THE PRESIDENT: Isn't that an affidavit of Huemmer concerning the Montgelas case?
DR. SCHILF: At the moment I am not able to supply the exhibit; if I may ask your indulgence for a moment, Your Honor.
A The exhibit Huemmer is concerned with sentences of civilian court courts--martial in Nurnberg. The civilian courts-martial -
THE PRESIDENT: I suspect that the exhibit number is wrong; that is my only reason for speaking of it.
DR. SCHILF: Exhibit 494 is the Huemmer affidavit. It concerns the establishment of civilian courts-martials.
A I can state my view of it in a few sentences. The order for this establishment of the civilian courts-martial had become necessary because in several localities near the front civilian courts-martials of an illegal nature had been formed. To that extent I refer to Document Book III-L, page 10. This is the list of reports to the Minister of 10 January, 1945, under Figure 7. there is a case reported in which a Kreisleiter had established civilian courts-martials on his own authority; but there were several of such cases. The Administration of Justice was faced with the situation of either ignoring this illegal situation or to create an institution by which judges and prosecutors would be injected into proceedings in order to examine the proof of guilt carefully. Furthermore, to create a court that could work quickly and was independent of the president of the district court of appeals, or from the Ministry in Berlin which was very far distant; but attention had also to be paid to having the activities limited as brief as possible. The highest state official in the district, the highest official was the Reich Defense Commissar;therefore, he was linked up with this and orders for the creation of civilian courts-martial were brought out in agreement with the Ministry of the Interior, under which the Reich Defense Commissar was working. And the right of approval by the Reich Commissar was introduced as a replacement for the provisions of the penal code of procedure that every death sentence had first to be submitted to the Ministry for a clemency decision; but this civilian courts-martial was also supposed to be restricted in regard to special points of view -only capital offenses were supposed to be tried before it; therefore, only in matters in which a death sentence was possible it could decide. Everything else had to be handed over to the ordinary Administration of Justice; or, it could acquit persons; this was included for practical reasons so that the matters would not have to be tried twice.
The civilian court martials were also not introduced generally; they were only possible in places which were endangered by the enemy, and at that time executive regulations were issued to the effect that in the individual districts, the civil court martials could be established only with the special permission of the Reich Minister of Justice. In a conference which took place with Under--Secretary Kritsinger of the Reich Chancellery, and Under-Secretary Klopfer of the Party Chancellery, and me, I, on order of Thierack, urged especially that judges and prosecutors were included in these civilian court martials, and that happened.
Q The Huemmer affidavit, that is to say, Exhibit 494, mentions a number of cases which were sentenced by the civilian court martial in Nurnberg, among other the case of Count Montgelas; did these cases become known to you when you were Under--Secretary?
A Neither the Count Montgelas case nor the others were known to me at the time.
Q The next subject which I will discuss with you deals with your relationship, as Under-Secretary, to the Party Chancellery. I have to refer back again to the Altmeyer affidavit that is Exhibit 441. We have had to mention it already frequently during your examination; therefore, one is NG-1307, in supplementary volume I, Document Book I. Altmeyer stated in this affidavit that it was his impression you had a very close relationship to Bormann, and in many cases you are alleged to have asked for the decisions of the Party Chancellery; that is, when you were Under-Secretary, if there were pending penal cases. Altmeyer further stated that you frequently stated that you could make a decision in your capacity as Under--Secretary only after you had found out the opinion of the Party Chancellery. What do you have to say to this?
A I have already discussed my relationship with Bormann before. To the Party Chancellery, and especially Group III-C, letters were written frequently, but never in the way which Altmeyer said it was done:
Frequently the divisions came to me to ask me for help. Party Chancellery, Group III-C was informed especially in penal cases against political leaders, so that from the very beginning it could be seen, on the part of the Party Chancellery that no local difficulties would arise between the Party agencies and the Administration of Justice. There were also many cases in which the Party Chancellery had written to us and we had to answer. And, at the beginning of my activities as Under-Secretary, there were even cases which were reported to me and a negative decision was sent to the Party Chancellery in answer to a letter which I, myself, had signed when I was still in the Party Chancellery as Chief of Group III-C and had signed them. Altmeyer's statements can also be disproved by the list of schedules of reports in Document Book III-L. There are altogether ten cases which concern letters to the Party Chancellery; four or five of them concern only penal cases regarding political leaders in which the Party Chancellery is informed about it so that, on its part, it can take the necessary Steps. For the rest, they are concerned with excessives of political leaders who were reprimanded or with trials under the law against malicious acts. And, in this matter we had to get in touch with the Party Chancellery because of the regulations. One could not talk at all about asking the Party Chancellery for decisions.
Q In order to shorten the submission of evidence, we have to inform the Tribunal about the places in Exhibit 242, in which the ten cases you mentioned are contained. Can you briefly complete this by stating the page numbers?
A It is sheet 77, that is pages 87 and 88 in the English; cases 11 and 18 pages 89 and 90 in the English; No. 24 and 30, pages 103 and 104; No. 8, 12, 15, and 18; and sheet 154, 155; No. 3 and No. 10.
Q In addition to the places which you cited, it is apparent that these were the cases which you have mentioned?
A. Yes, those which I outlined briefly.
Q I have to put another question to you, that a further affidavit be submitted, that is the Franke affidavit, Exhibit 515. NO-1474, Book III-A, the supplementary volume. Franke stated in his affidavit that at the time of your activities as Under-Secretary the Ministry of Justice, "ausnuetzen", made use, that is the term he used of your good relationship to the Party Chancellery; please comment on this?
A In all cases where difficulties with the Party were threatening, the Referents and Department Chiefs came to me because I knew the Party Chancellery; that was in personnel matters, in penal cases, and in civil cases, especially in those three fields. As far as possible I also helped in such cases, that is not by writing official letters but personal letters, and I wrote them personally to an individual in the Party Chancellery. In that way we frequently succeeded in avoiding difficulties end to preserve the interest of the administration of justice. To that extent, the expression "ausnuetzen" , to make use of, which Franke used, is correct.
Q But your relationship to the Party Chancellery could also have its disadvantages, namely, when the Party Chancellery would recognize that you did not take care of the interest of the Party well enough; did such cases occur?
A No, such cases did not occur. The individuals in the Party Chancellery knew me; after all, Division III with whom we had to deal, and especially the people in Group III-C whose superior I had been. It was even so that, especially because I had been in the Party Chancellery before and the people knew of me, that I took case of the interest of the administration of justice. I could write to them or speak to them much more frequently and openly than others. I can remember some few cases in which I wrote in a form which would have been impossible officially. I became so severe in one case, it was the incorporation of the members of the Ministry of Justice into the Volkssturm.
In another case, we were concerned with the elimination of having an expert in the Ministry of Justice declared essential. A Gau Leadership had caused that he was no longer declared essential on its own authority, and the third case was concerned with the matter in Vienna, in which the Party had interfered in the Rent Court.
Q The Prosecution believes that with Exhibit 44, that is NG-416, in Document Book I-B, they pan prove the opposite to you, the opposite of which you stated just now. This concerns correspondence which you, as Under-Secretary, carried on with the Party Chancellery, that is about political penal cases of the Wehrmacht. Would you please comment on this, too?
A The correspondence just shows that the legal group III-C, was in accordance with the efforts of the Ministry of Justice. Thierack had written to Bormenn before, in his capacity as Secretary to the Fuehrer, with the aim that all of the defendants who resulted from the affair of 20 July, should be indicted only before the People's Court. The main reason was that we wanted to avoid that this trial should be handled before a Reich Military Court for military persons, and before the People's Court for civilians.
It was the effort of the Administration of Justice in general to regain lost ground, and in that way it was intended to regain again for Civilian Administration of Justice a part of the Wehrmacht jurisdiction which had been separated from it. But it was particularly important in this connection that those things which the Military Judiciary would have to give up again to the Civilian Administration of Justice, would also have to have been given up by the Police and SS judiciary, because they could not be excluded from that, and this was the actual aim -- to again do away with that limitation of the sphere of the Administration of Justice which had developed since 1933. Friedrich and I did not carry on other correspondence in this matter as far as I know.
Q. We have also exhauseted that subject. Now I come to the next point. The prosecution also wants to make you responsible for -- in their assertion -- illegal measures in civil cases. So far we had occasion only to speak of penal cases as far as you were Under Secretary. Now we come to a subject which concerns itself with civil cases, civil litigations. Please first state briefly to the Tribunal to what extent you, in the Ministry of Justice, had to deal with these civil cases; that is, civil litigation.
A. In accordance with my entire career I was mainly a penal lawyer. I had first to make special efforts to get into civil legal cases. Therefore, in regard to Division VI, Civil Law, and VII that was Public Law, and Commercial Law, I gave them especially frequently the opportunity to report to me. Therefore, Herr Altstoetter reported to me, and we spoke a great deal, especially about that problem that the Administration of Justice would not be deprived of even more fields, and that the constitutional institutions would remain, and should be expanded. Altstoetter in particular came to me frequently, especially if he had not succeeded with his suggestions with the Minister, that is, he came to me in addition to going to the Minister -- then he reported the matters to me again so what I should try to bring about a turn of events, but I very seldom succeeded.
Q. The prosecution has submitted against you Exhibit 452, NG790, in Supplementary Volume V III. This concerns a letter of the Reich Minister of Justice of 22 August 1944, to all presidents of the District Courts of Appeal. The letter, as you see, bears your signature. Will you please comment briefly?
A. I saw this circular after it was issued. I did not have to criticize ---
JUDGE BRAND: You didn't tell us the Exhibit number.
DR. SCHILF: 452. On page 7 of the list which I have given to you, the sixth number ....
A. This circular decree gave no cause for misgivings because in 1944 very few trials were still Tending altogether, and it was a security measure that these trials should be handled especially carefully.
Q. In addition, Exhibit 453 was submitted against you, NG-900, also in Supplementary Book VIII. This concerns a document which treated s-called complaints of decent of Jews. The decisive question in this document is whether you, from the letter which is contained in this document, which was written by the Chief of the SD and the Security Police, could gain the conviction that Jews should be exterminated. If you have the document in front of you -- it (consists of several letters -- the first is of 3 May 1944, there the Chief of the SD writes to the Reich Minister of Justice in this letter, and the subject is a request for information about reports regarding Jews. Please comment on this.
A. In regard to the first question I can only repeat what I have already stated in regard to Exhibit 348. No such thought ever occurred to me. Moreover, I only saw the introductory letter of this document on which the Minister had written "V" -- which meant "Vortragsanerdnung", schedule of report. With that, the matter was taken out of my sphere of activity.
Q. Furthermore, the prosecution submitted in this connection Exhibit 457. That is NG--666, in Supplementary Volume V. Here we are concerned with a circular decree which concerned the testing of the legitimacy of a marraige, the testing by a father of a child, with the assertion that he was not the father , and the child was illegitimate. In such proceedings the prosecution was supposed to take part. Would you please comment on this letter of 33 December 1944, a letter by the Minister to all general public prosecutors.
A. As far as I remember I did not see that circular decree at the time. However, if I had seen it I would have approved it for it concerns only the control that the authorities themselves would not conduct trials that were unimportant to the war effort.
Q. Was this just purely a war time measure in order to avoid trials and save personnel ?
A. Only this measure for saving personnel was the purpose of this circular decree.
Q. In conclusion I have to talk with you about Exhibit 460 in regard to your activity in civil matters. Exhibit 460 is NG--891, also in Supplementary Volume V. This is a letter by the Minister, of 11 November 1944, to the presidents of the District Courts of Appeal, and concerns the question as to how illegitimate children of foreign female workers who were working in Germany should be treated. Would you please comment on this, too?
A. The Minister of Interior had issued these directives of 5 September 1944. The Ministry of Justice had to undertake something so that the presidents of of the district Courts of Appeal could inform the judges on the question of guardianship. At this time I can no longer state whether I saw that circular decree of the Ministry of Justice at the time, but I don't believe I did.
Q. With that we have discussed all questions which concern your activity in the field of civil Administration of Justice.
The final subject I have to discuss with you now concerns the activity which was also emphasized in the indictment, namely, your activity in Division II. The indictment asserts that in Division II in educational questions and in personnel matters you had followed a line which was not in accordance with the principles of a constitutional state. Please give the Court a short insight into your activity in Division II, and to what extent you worked there in comparison with your other activities as Under Secretary.
A. As Under Secretary I was at the same time Chief of Division II, in which the questions of examination and training were dealt with. In this Division I did not only have a supervisory activity, but worked on some individual matters and suggestions and I also worked just as a Division Chief. In fact, Division II during the years 1944/1945 differed entirely from the Justice examination office of the years 1933-1939. The two no longer had any similarity to each other. The Training Camp for young jurists, Hanns Kerrl had been closed in 1939, and the land had been sold.
I myself was an opponent of this camp idea and Thierack was also. In 1944-1945 the times demanded the solution of quite different problems than had existed formerly, first of all an abbreviated examination had to be carried out for men who were supposed to become soldiers, and also for candidates who had been discharged by the Wehrmacht because they were wounded or sick and had lost a great deal of time due to their military service. These shorter examinations which were, therefore, introduced required that the examination and the questions in the examinations were completely worked over and newly set up. The requirements could not be as high as they were during peace time. The examination thesis of purely historical contents were eliminated entirely. An absolutely catastrophic lack of legal literature prevailed. If the aspiring lawyers wanted to prepare themselves scientifically at all we had to procure commentaries and so forth and we instituted libraries in the district courts of appeals for these candidates. That was a very difficult task. We instituted the work communities for practicians in the universities for the students who had come out of the war as mature men would not be offered only theory at the universities. A special work, however, was created for division II through the new curriculum order, the Ministry of the Interior made requirements for administrative training. All of this had to be controlled and regulated. I only outlines this work in large outlines. Of political training or examinations one could no longer talk about in 1944 or 1945. It would have seemed ridiculous to me to try to undertake anything in this regard with men who had proved by their employment in the war that they worked for Germany.
Q HerrKlemm; the Prosecution has submitted exhibit 432, that is NG 789, document Book I, supplement, and wanted to assert by so doing that in the training questions you were supposed to have pursued points of view which did not concern the administration of justice, the constitution and law at purely national socialist matters. This concerns only a house regulation of the ministry of justice and is dated 17 December 1943.
We know that on 17 December 1943 you were not yet under-secretary but the decree must have been submitted to you later because it bears your signature, exhibit 432.
THE PRESIDENT: It is called to my attention that the date is 1942 in that exhibit.
DR. SCHILF: That must be an error, Your Honor, the date must be 17 December 1943. This is the date it bears in the German document as introduced.
THE PRESIDENT: Perhaps the matter should be checked up. Apparently the document books are different as to the date. We can do that later.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q Well this ruling by this house regulation has a previous date and although it was issued before you started your duties as undersecretary, it bears your signature. Would you please comment on this?
A Meinhoff belonged to Division 6 and I saw him there once or twice. He reported one or two matters to me which belonged in his department, in this division 6. During my time as under-secretary Meinhoff was in division 2. We neither had the time nor the opportunity to work on such matters as Meinhoff had dealt with in division 2.
Q This ministry ruling contains the instructions that aspiring judges or jurists in hereditary, national and criminal biological questions should be more thoroughly instructed. Is the statement which you just made to be understood to the effect that this was never carried out practically?
A No, I don't know anything about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Is that exhibit initialed by the defendant Klemm?
DR. SCHILF: Yes, Your Honor.
BY DR. SCHILF:
Q As Chief of division 2 and also as under-secretary you had to deal to a certain extent with personnel questions. You have already mentioned this in passing.
I am asking you quite generally what attitude did you take particularly as undersecretary represent in personnel matters and what was the expression of your attitude, what was the result?
A I have already told that up to a certain limit I was independent in personnel matters. In my policy in regard to personnel matters I never let the usual national socialist point of view guide me, the length of service in the party, activity in the party, the attitude towards the party press and general superficial external circumstances. It was often also that I liked the non-party member more than those who had only entered the party out of opportunism and because it was the thing to do. In my policy in regard to personnel matters I wax particularly interested in the technical achievements and the character of the persons, the length of the membership in the Nazi party did not play any part for me. Already at the time when I was in Saxony I had become very careful because, particularly among these people, there were frequently some who were not very good in their professions, were not worth much professionally, and, therefore, before 1933 they had entered the Nazi party because this did not involve a risk for them in their professional careers where they could not advance anyhow because of their inefficiency. In considering promotions I thought first of the person and his ability as far as I could see that from the files. However, on the other hand in the case of a younger person I recognized once in a while that he fulfilled these prerequisites. If he did so I did not follow the general directives in regard to age and so forth, but I suggested sometimes a younger person for promotion especially.
Q Herr Klemm you do not have to cite examples. I shall have an opportunity to prove by documents that there were cases in which you actually gave evidence of these principles of your policy in regard to personnel matters. I believe that we have now discussed exhaustively all of the charges of the Prosecution and which the indictment raised against you, May it please the Tribunal, my direct examination is concluded.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have documents which you propose to offer now?
DR. SCHILF: Unfortunately I do not have them yet, Your Honor. More than ten days ago I have already handed in my document book for translation, but so far it has not been returned to me. I do not consider it practical to submit the documents without having the English translation available but I hope that in the beginning of next week I shall receive the document books translated into English, and then I would submit my documents at the beginning of the week.
THE PRESIDENT: Shouldn't counsel for the Prosecution have the benefit of the document books relative to the defendant Klemm before cross examining? What is the attitude of the Prosecution on that natter?
MR. LAFOLLETTE: Your Honor, may it please the Tribunal. To the fullest extent that it is possible we would certainly like to have the advantage of these document books before we have to engage in cross examination of this witness.
THE PRESIDENT: There may be others who want to directly examine the defendant, counsel for other defendants who desire to conduct direct examination. That may be done at this time.
Court No. III, Case No. 3.
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DR. SCHWARZ: (Attorney for the Defendant Petersen)
Q May I begin the direct examination on behalf of the defendant Petersen. Witness, you were Oberfuehrer in the SA and in that capacity you were also legal advisor in the Adjudantur, in the Adjutant's office of the Chief of Staff of the Supreme SA leadership and you worked whenever needed in that capacity. Is it correct that you knew the defendant Petersen personally?
A Yes, I knew Petersen.
Q Did the defendant Petersen ever participate in a discussion or conference in which you took part either as Chief of Group III-C of the Party Chancellory or as Under Secretary of the Reich Ministry of Justice?
A No, Petersen was in charge of the Personnel Main Office of the Supreme SA leadership and had nothing to do with the work which I had to deal with.
Q Did the defendant Petersen at any time during which you were in the Party Chancellory in chief Group III-C or later as Under Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice, in writing, or orally, directly or indirectly, have contact with you?
A No.
Q In what manner and to what point of view during your activity as Under Secretary was the selection and appointment of honorary associate judges of the People's Court to be taken?
AAs I have already described it, the individual organizations were requested to name people and at that time the main point of view was that they should be professionally able to participate in meetings of the sessions of the People's Court, especially that they should be available locally geographically.
Q Did this examination also go as to their attitude be made a prerequisite?
A The units, that is, the branches of the party were informed that Court No. III, Case No. 3.they were only supposed to take out decent and reliable people who were worthy of being associate judges of such a high court.
Q Can you tell me how many honorary associate judges there were on the People's Court at the end of your activity as Under Secretary without consideration of the losses which had resulted and which were not determined at that time?
A I cannot even state that approximately because I don't know who of the associate judges was at the Front or had died in the meantime or died in action and who was professionally able to participate in these sessions. I have no inside into that.
Q During your activity as Under Secretary in The Reich Ministry of Justice were instructions ever issued to the honorary associate judges on the People's Court?
A Never. In the same way as they were never issued to the judges themselves.
Q Did the honorary associate judges also receive the so-called Thierack Richterbriefe, judges' letters?
A Only those who were members of the Administration of Justice by their main profession; others not.
Q Thank you very much.
BY DR. DOETZER: (Attorney for the defendant Nebelung)
Q Witness, yesterday, if I remember correctly, during your examination by Dr. Schilf you stated your opinion exhaustively in regard to the People's Court. If I understood you correctly you said that you heard complaints about Freisler's conduct of trials and his jurisdiction only. Now, I would like to ask you the following: In the legal press by legal scientists or practicing lawyers, was any doubt ever raised as to the fact that the People's Court was a regular court?
A That never happened because it had expressly been regulated by law.
Q I assume that you read the scientific legal literature and the voices of the practicing lawyers and I, therefore, ask you furthermore Court No. III, Case No. 3.whether in this literature a doubt was ever raised as to the fact that the members of the People's Court who were composed of professional judges and especially selected honorary judges could endanger the independent and unprejudiced nature of a court?