Together with numerous representatives of the Party, of the State and of the Wehrnacht, Deputy-Gauleiter Vetter Took part in the celebration, representing there the Three Gauleiters of WestphaliaNorth, Westphalia-South and Essen. In his introductory speech State Secretary Dr. Rothenberger explained that it seems as though the war, which the German people are waging for their existence and for the maintenance of European culture, had entered a decisive phase at the end of its fourth year.
At such an important stage of the war, the moral and psychic attitude of each German would matter a great deal, Germans to whom greatest demands wore being put today and that the spiritual power of resistance of the people were of decisive importance for the final struggle. To secure and strengthen this steadfast spiritual attitude were the most eminent tasks of our administration of justice, for our people would endure the biggest sacrifices and privations if it were to know that justice and equal treatment were being guaranteed..."
If the Court pleases, and if it is acceptable to the Tribunal, the Defense Counsel and the Prosecution have just orally stipulated that the document now being read will be offered into evidence at the conclusion of the Prosecution's reading subject to the Prosecution furnishing the Defense Counsel at the earliest possible moment, which will probably be the next day the Court is in session, the statement as to the source of this report we are now reading. The original exhibit does not show, on the face, from what publication this document was taken. The Prosecution has undertaken to furnish that to the Defense Counsel and at the earliest possible moment.
Is that agreeable to the Tribunal?
THE PRESIDENT: That will be agreeable to the Tribunal.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: And, the acceptance will be conditional?
THE PRESIDENT: I think you might as well follow the same practice as you did a while ago, and retain the exhibit at your desk.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: And not offer it at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: You can offer it, but I think if you keep that exhibit instead of sending it up here it will be better.
You did that in the other instance, did you not?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Very well, your Honor, we will try again with Exhibit No. 47.
THE PRESIDENT: If I remember correctly, the other Exhibit you retained was later withdrawn?
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir; it was.
THE PRESIDENT: We will receive it conditionally, but I suggest that this matter should not be allowed to run along indefinitely. I think you should report back to us Monday about the situation of these Exhibits.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: Yes, sir; we will withdraw the document and resubmit it on Monday.
JUDGE BRAND: The Prosecution was going to read it and offer it, and that it be received conditionally.
MR. WOOLEYHAN: In line with the Tribunal's suggestion, the Prosecution will withdraw the offer and resubmit it the next day of business. The next document which the Prosecution wishes to offer as Exhibit No. 47 is found on page up of the English document book 1-A, document No. NG 290. The letterhead is:
"National-Socialistic German Workers' Party, The Fuehrer, Fuehrer Headquarters, 20 August 1942.
"Reich Minister Dr. FRANK asked me to be released of his duties in the Party, to be able to devote himself most intensively to his tasks as a governor general. I granted this request.
"I appoint the party member Dr. Georg THIERACK as Chief of the National Socialist Lawyers' League.
"Signed Adolf HITLER."
The second page of the original document reads:
"I appoint NS Party officer Dr. Curt Rothenberger up to new Gau-chief of the NS Lawyers' League in the Gau of Hambourg as my deputy in the administration of the NS Lawyers' League.
"Berlin, 24 September 1942.
"The Chief of the NS Lawyers' League.
"THIERACK, Commanding Chief."
Page 3 of the original document reads:
"Order "I hereby appoint NS Party officer, Party member KLEMM in the Party chancellery as liaison officer between the Chief of the NS Lawyers' League and the Munich offices of the Central NSDAP Headquarters.
"Signed THIERACK, "Commanding Chief."
The Prosecution offers Exhibit No. 47, Document No. NG 290 in evidence.
THE PRESIDENT: It will then be received in evidence.
MR. KING: May it please the Court, the prosecution would offer at this time Exhibit No. 48, Document No. NG-220, which will be found in Document Bock 1, Section B, at page 120. The Court will note that the document consists of three pages - two letters and the certificate of translation. At this time we desire to read only from the letter which is to be found on page 121 of the English translation. From the Office of the Reich Minister of Justice:
"To the Presidents of the Appellate Court. Berlin, 8 May 1937. Subject: Specification of higher officials for draft into the Reich Ministry of Justice.
"In order to enable us to draft in case of an emergency capable aids of the higher services into the Reich Ministry of Justice, I request to have the names of 2 to 4 young lawyers of local courts or courts of appeals from the larger districts, and 1 to 2 such officials from the smaller districts submitted. Initial nominations to reach me on 15 June 1937, and every two years thereafter, always on 1 April. The specified officials should be especially suited for work at the Reich Ministry of Justice.
"Because of the great demands that are made on all those in the service of the Ministry, I want to suggest only such officials who have proved themselves superior, and whose attitude guarantees that they will defend the National Socialist state at anytime without hesitation, and represent it effectively. They must have the character qualities which are requisite in the administration of justice."
MR. KING: That's all we wish to read from this document. That letter is signed by Dr. Nadler.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: The prosecution would now like to introduce as Exhibit No. 49, Document No. NG-560, which is to be found on page 134 of Document Book 1, Section B. This is addressed to a Captain Ryan. The first paragraph is as follows:
"I enclose the "List of Officials Dismissed for political reasons from the Reich Ministry of Justice and the former Prussian Ministry of Justice" which you requested of me the day before yesterday.
In respect to the regular ministerial officials of the higher and elevated civil service it ought to be complete. In the other branches of the service we cannot remember all the persons dismissed. We have given all the minor officials that we can remember but it is easily possible that omissions exist because of the length of time which has passed."
MR. KING: It is signed "Schneller, Ministerial Director, 20 July 1945". There follows on the same page of the English text a list of officials with a few introductory paragraphs. Those introductory paragraphs we wish to read. The first paragraph:
"The following methods were available for the removal of regular ministerial officials.
"1. According to the civil service law of the Reich and of Prussia which essentially corresponds with the law of the German Civil Service Act:
1. Transfer to an office with at least equal final base pay. Financial loss: Normally at the greatest, loss of the Ministerial bonus (in the higher civil service 1200 RM. annually).
2. Transfer to inactive status for Staatssekretaeren and Ministerialdirektoren.
a. Financial loss the difference between active salary and inactive status pay which for senior officials of these high paid groups normally corresponded to the pension.
b. Upon putting an official from inactive status back into a position with less pay than his normal course, he received his former service salary again (therefore, not merely the salary of the new office) so that the financial loss was normally limited to the loss of the Ministerial bonus.
3. As purely practical, not legal removal from office: derogation to another authority. The official then remained possessor of his ministerial office and received its salary, paid by the new service office. Financial loss was therefore at the highest the loss of the Ministry or equally placed to a Ministry for the purpose of the Ministerial bonus.
II. According to the "Professional Officials Law" which was promulgated by the National Socialists 1. Dismissal without pension according to section 2, BBG, which was only permissible on account of Communist activity and did not happen in the Ministry of Justice.
2. Dismissal according to section 4, BBG, with 3/4 of the pension accrued up to that time.
3. Transfer to an office - also with less final base salary - according to section 5, BBG with debiting of the salary of the former office. Financial loss was therefore at the highest the loss of the Ministerial bonus.
4. Transfer into retirement in the interests of the service (without proposal of the official and without incapacity to serve) according to section 6, BBG. Financial loss was the difference between salary and pension so far as according the general Civil Service Law. A pension was already earned which always came true with the Ministerial officials.
The removal of assistants from office normally followed by cancellation of the employment contract and return to the authority with which they were permanently placed."
MR. KING: There follows a list of several pages of officials dismissed with their positions held and a summary of their qualifications. We do not believe that it is expedient at this time to read that list so we offer as Exhibit No. 49, the Document NG-560
DR. KUBOSCHOK: I raise an objection against the use of this document. The document in its first part includes a letter; evidently it went to commanding officer of a camp. The German prisoner has furnished a list. This list and the statement in the covering letter are not covered by an affidavit. We not even know whether this list was put together by the person who sent it or where it originated. This list consequently does not have any probative value. The objection is raised especially because it cannot be seen where this prisoner provided he prepared the list himself, where he had this very detailed knowledge being in the camp. I therefore believe that this document cannot be used until the person who made this list has been identified or after it has been established that this list was covered by a declaration under oath.
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask counsel a question?
MR. KING: Certainly.
JUDGE BRAND: I understood counsel for the defense to suggest that it appears, from the face of this exhibit, that it is a statement made by a prisoner. Does that appear from the exhibit?
MR. KING: One moment, please.
Your Honor, it does appear on the face of the document, both from the date--20 July 1945-- and the fact that it is at Camp Teichhof, where ever that may be, that this individual probably was a prisoner of war at the time the statement was made. It seems to the prosecution, however, that as the Ministerial Director, the individual who has signed this letter, Schneller, certainly was in a position to know something about the number of judges who were dismissed. The document itself, on its face, qualifies that. He says, in the last part of the first paragraph, that there arc probably some omissions and he can't remember all of them, but with that exception we believe the document does have probative value and should be admitted for what it is worth in that respect.
JUDGE BRAND: Who do you claim is responsible for the portion that you read, the foreword?
MR. KING: That appears to be the Ministerial Director Schneller, who has signed the paragraph preceding the foreword.
JUDGE BRAND: Is there any probative value at all in this case for that portion of the exhibit which is merely a list of names of persons, none of whom are defendants in this case? In other words, I wanted to know if your only claim is not limited to the foreword portion which you read.
MR. KING: Your Honor, you have the book before you. If you will turn to page 136 in the English text, you will note that the Ministerial Director Schneller has given certain reasons why, in his opinion, the individuals were transferred. It is those reasons, under the column "Remarks" on the extreme right, which we think have a certain probative value, that it ought to be placed before the Court for its consideration.
JUDGE BRAND: But the names of the individuals dismissed are comparatively immaterial, are they not?
MR. KING: That is correct, Your Honor.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: With only this exception, Your Honor. If we had not furnished names of people dismissed, then you might well say that we were pulling names out of the air. These are definitely people who can be identified and ascertained, and are possibly known.
We feel that this document has probative value and that the weight which the Tribunal will care to attach to it, and the defendants against whom it may eventually be considered to have probative value, is some thing the Tribunal can later determine. But we think it has sufficient probative value to go in at this time.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: The covering letter to Captain Ryan shows in no manner that the signer, Ministerial Director Schneller, prepared this list himself, nor does it show whether the first pert of the legal statement originates from himself. A document cannot have probative value when we have no knowledge about the origin of the document. It should be easily possible for the prosecution, through a question, to determine and to bring forth a statement whether, in effect, Ministerial Director Schneller prepared this list himself and whether he endorses it.
The question is important because the defendants, as regards a list comprising a number of persons, do not have any possibility at this time, on their part, to make certain findings. Consequently, they must now rely on the rights coming to them under the procedure to raise an objection against this list.
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that the important question is whether this document is properly authenticated. It is signed, apparently, by Schneller, but it is doubted that Schneller in fact signed it.
MR. KING: If Your Honors will note, on page 140 of the English test there is subscribed, after the last entry of assistants dismissed, again the signature of Schneller. The date corresponds to the date of the covering letter, which appears on page 134. But perhaps of more significance is the additional note in the lower left-hand corner, which states that it was reproduced by the Legal Division of US Group CC, 1 August 1945, which is, as Mr. La Follette points out, covered by the Coogan affidavit introduced in evidence yesterday.
JUDGE BRAND: What would counsel have to say with reference to the suggestion that in the letter which appears to be signed by Schneller, on page 134, Schneller apparently vouches for the information contained in the list?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I would say that that is subject to two interpretations, one of them certainly consistent with the fact that Schneller signed it. It may be that the man is simply saying "I vouch for this list" as an extra statement of the veracity of the list. It does not necessarily infer that he is vouching for some list that some one else handed to him. It is very consistent with a manner of speaking in which a person, having already signed something, goes on and makes a list and says, "I vouch for the facts which are in this list."
THE PRESIDENT: It would seem that the answer to that is that Schneller's name appears at the end of the list.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Which he preceded by saying "I vouch for the list, and now I have signed it."
THE PRESIDENT: The Tribunal is of the opinion that it has some probative value. If there are further doubts to be thrown about the authenticity of the document, defense counsel will probably be able to develop that.
DR. GRUBE (Counsel for the defendant Lautz): The ruling of the Tribunal in this case is of principal importance for us. The Tribunal permits, in this case, that a simple letter is admitted as probative evidence. We receive daily, from witnesses testifying for us, letters which likewise contain a great deal of material in favor of the defendants. Up until this time we were not permitted to make use of such material except in the form of an affidavit; the form of an affidavit was very strictly handled.
Therefore, I should like to ask whether we can infer from this ruling, whether we can take it for granted that we likewise can take similar material as authentic documents of probative value.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May I be heard, Your Honor?
THE PRESIDENT: We take it that from the Coogan affidavit we have sufficient ground for admitting the document as being properly authenticated, in the absence of any additional proof to the contrary.
DR. GRUBE: If it please the Tribunal, I should like to state that the Coogan affidavit merely ascertains the correctness of the letter by Schneller. However, it never can assure that the statements in the letter are actually correct.
I believe, consequently, that the Coogan affidavit is not adequate to attach probative value in this case.
Up until now the International Military Tribunal admitted only such documents which had been siezed, or statements which had been prepared according to rules drawn up for the trial. This also applied to exhibits submitted by the prosecution.
When considering the validity of the Coogan affidavit, and if that were to be extended to all documents, then it would be sufficient, as an example, if the defendants would present a simple declaration and then the Coogan affidavit would be submitted. However, inasmuch as in other cases evidently the prosecution takes the position that for the documentary material which is submitted by the prosecution the form of an affidavit has to be used, I am of the opinion that the same conditions must apply in this present case for the letter in question
JUDGE BRAND: May I ask counsel a question? If this entire list had been made out by Schneller and no one else and Schneller had signed and vouched for it, would you still maintain your position that it was inadmissible?
DR. GRUBE: Yes, I am of the opinion the single signature of Schneller does not prove that the content of the document is actually correct. If this is to be an authentic document, then it should be prepared in the form of an affidavit. As already stated, I do not believe that the probative value of this document should be the same as that of the Coogan document. For instance, from the viewpoint of the defense it would be easily possible to accept a situation where any kind of a counsel signs any kind of a list filled with a number of names and that he declares of thirty verdicts in fifteen cases an acquittal took place and in all the other cases it was a conviction. This witness who would be considered as a defendant sign this list with his name. I do not believe that such a list should be accepted by the Tribunal in this case as an authentic document simply because this man gave his signature.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: Doctor, I don't want to preclude you. Just for a minute. I don't want to preclude you. You may come back.
I think to settle this largely by going back to why I believe is the outstanding element in this question of probative valuo, something which was said in the opening statement, and I tried to say yesterday, that under tho circumstances under which this material of this kind was obtained, when an army comes in and when the situation is disrupted, that which gives evidence of the fact that there was an honest endeavor to obtain truthful information places this in an entirely different position that a current, unsworn to letter. Of course, if we had brought this letter out yesterday, counsel would be right, but that is the position that I take, and I hope the Tribunal will uphold us in it so that we may proceed.
DR. GRUBE: May I add a remark in this connection?
JUDGE BRAND: We should like to inquire if the defense questions the genuineness of Schneller's signature in the place where it appears?
DR. GRUBE: I do not doubt the authenticity of Schneller's signature, but I do Doubt that the document in itself written by Schneller has any probative value, the reason being that the group affidavit can testify to the correctness of the copy only, but it cannot prove the authenticity of the letter itself. The authenticity of the letter itself could be established by the form of an affidavit only.
DR. KUBUSCHOK: May I also call the Tribunal's attention to the fact that the last sentence of the letter of Schneller to Captain Ryan shows that the list was not prepared by Schneller himself but by several other persons. He speaks there in plural sense, "we." If several persons prepared that list, then the fact that the sender merely signed does not yet vouch for the authenticity of the list. If in the case of such a work prepared by a group of people we cannot establish who are the people who prepared the list, whether they were reliable or unreliable persons, interested or not interested persons, then we cannot take a position as regards the authenticity and the probative value of the document.
DR. WANDSCHNEIDER: May it please the Tribunal, in the name of the defendant Rothenberger may I still add a few words on the subject? The question raised is important, not only for this occasion but for the entire continuation of the trial in principal, and in that respect it is of considerable importance. Consequently I extend my thanks to the Tribunal for giving us this extensive opportunity to take our positions in regard to this question in principal.
In regard to this question I would say undoubtedly this does not involve an affidavit but a simple letter. The question of one of the Doctors that evidently a certain authentic and probative value should be attached to the signature of Schneller, in my opinion, cannot be answered in that sense when taking into consideration the contents of the letter, because once we consider the content of the entire document we will find that under each individual figure comprehensively a number of names and professional data are given about the individual persons involved which, in itself, would call for an exceptionally careful and extensive preparation of such a document.
Now, speaking of a great number of persons, when the most significant data on their career, their professional development, their political work and ideology and reasons for their dismissal from office are being summed up in one document without this document being verified in the form of an affidavit, this violates one of the rules of procedure -
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Brand has inquired whether there is a serious question as to the genuineness of the signature of Schneller. I would like to ask Dr. Wandschneider if he questions that.
DR. GRUBE: In regard to the question whether, if a letter covered a group affidavit, it is authentic, I deny that. For instance, it may also be possible if the power were given somebody to certify to the correctness of a number of signatures, I do not believe that such a letter given to an attorney and for which he has signatures prepared -I do not believe that such a letter would be admitted. The group list testifies only to the correctness of the copy, but not as to the authenticity of the content.
THE PRESIDENT: We have given counsel unusual opportunity to make their statements, because it is doubtless important. It is more important to us to be right, of course. But we think after consideration of all that has been said, that this document has some evidence of authenticity and if so, that it has certainly probative value. If it is -
DR: GRUBE: However, I should then raise the question -- may I then put the question again, can we infer from this ruling of the Tribunal that we can submit letters which are being sent to us by witnesses for us as probative documents?
MR. LA FOLLETTE: I don't think you can put the Tribunal on the spot that way. In the first place, as I pointed out, this thing was collected under the circumstances which were unusual and are covered by the Coogan affidavit, the system of the IMT and the rest of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Our answer to the last question asked by defense counsel is that it is a very general question and we will answer that when the occasion arises. We can't answer what ruling might be made on a submission that is not before us. This one is before us and we are doing our best to answer that correctly.
DR. GRUBE: I only wanted to prevent that the defense should be deprived of some advantage if it is permitted to the Prosecution to submit letters as documents, while according to the previous procedure, we are not permitted to do this and to submit ordinary letters as documents.
THE PRESIDENT: We think we have given counsel unusual time to present their views and that our rulings will be final.
MR. KING: The Prosecution desires to offer NG-475 which can be found on Page 152 of Document Book 1, Section B of the English Text.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not get the page number.
MR. KING: Page 152, Your Honor.
This letter is dated Berlin, 17 September, 1942. It is addressed to the Chief of Staff SA. Lutze.
"Chief of Staff.
"The Vice-President of the People's Court, SS-Oberfuehrer Engert, will retire on 1 November 1942. I intend to propose Ministerial director Dr. Crohme, hitherto with the Rich Ministry for Justice as Vice-President of the People's Court. Crohne has the rank of a Sturmbannfuehrer. I should welcome if it were possible to promote Crohne who has been member of the Party since 1932 to a Standartenfuehrer considering the very great importance of the position of Vice President of the People's Court."
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit Number 50, NG-475.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Exhibit Number 51, the Prosecution will offer in evidence Document Number NG-184 which is to be found on Page 153 through 162 in Document Book 1, Section B. This document consists almost entirely of a list of the names of the judges f the People's Court. There is a covering letter, and then there follows 8 or 9 pages listing the honorary members of the People's Court. Me do not wish either to read the covering letter or to read the list of names except to point out that the Defendant Petersen's name appears on Page 159 We offer Document NG-184 as Prosecution's Exhibit 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received.
MR. KING: As Prosecution's Exhibit Number 52, we offer Document Number NG-148 which is to be found in Document Book 1, Section, on Page 164 in the English text. It consists of one page only. It is a letter dated Berlin, 28 October, 1944 from the Office of the Reich Minister of Justice to the President of the People's Court, Dr. Freisler.
"My dear President, "You sent me the letter from the newly appointed honorary member of the People's Court, SA-Oberfuehrer Robert Reinecke, who, immediately after his appointment, states that he cannot exercise his office.
"Since these cases are increasing, I intend to take appropriate steps in the offices which have so far proposed honorary members for the People's Court. I ask you therefore to inform me of those cases in which newly appointed members of the People's Court indicate that they cannot exercise their office at all or only to an insufficient extent.
"Heil Hitler "Yours "Dr. Thierack."
The Prosecution offers as Exhibit Number 52, Document NG-148.
THE PRESIDENT: The document will be received in evidence.
MR. KING: As Prosecution's Exhibit Number 53? we would like to offer the Document 2967-PS which is to be found on Page 141 and the following four pages in Document Book 1, Section B.
This is an affidavit of Dr. Hans Anschuetz, at present District Court Director at Heidleburg, who after having been duly sworn, deposes as follows:
May it please the Court: There seems to be difficulty here with the German text. The document numbered 2967-PS which appears in the German text does not correspond with the document of the same number in the English text. Until we can resolve the difficulty there, I think we had better pass over the introduction of this document. I therefore withdraw that from consideration.
THE PRESIDENT: How much time will the next document consume? I see we have only a few minutes before adjournment time.
MR. KING: That would be NG-478. It consists of a document in the neighborhood of 5 or 6 pages. Your suggestion is well taken.
THE PRESIDENT: We will, therefore, adjourn the Tribunal until next Monday morning at 9:30 o'clock.
THE MARSHAL: The Tribunal will recess until 9:30 o'clock Monday morning.
(The Tribunal recessed on 7 March 1947 at 1630 hours until 10 March 1947 at 0930 hours.)
Official Transcript of the American Military Tribunal in the matter of the United States of America, against Josef Alstotter, et al., defendants, sitting at Nurnberg, Germany, on 10 March 1947, 0935 - 1630, Justice Marshall presiding.
THE MARSHAL: Persons in the court room will please find their seats.
The Honorable, the Judges of Military Tribunal III.* Military Tribunal III is new in session?
God save the United States of America and this Honorable Tribunal.
There will be order in the court.
THE PRESIDENT: The Marshal will ascertain whether the defendants are in their places.
THE MARSHAL: May it please Your Honors, all the defendants are present in the court room with the exception of Rothaug and Engert, who are absent due to sickness.
THE PRESIDENT: The prosecution will proceed.
MR. LA FOLLETTE: May it please Your Honors, the prosecution desires to offer in evidence as Prosecution Exhibit No. 53, Document No. 802. That is the biographical affidavit of the defendant Curt Rothenberger. It was originally, as I recall, offered last Thursday or Friday, and there had not been a distribution of the German, or there was no evidence here that there had been. The prosecution is satisfied by receipt in the possession of Lt. Niebergall that this separate document was delivered to the Defense Center I hope it was then distributed there. Do the interpreters have a German text of this affidavit?
INTERPRETER: Yes.
MR. PRESIDENT: On what page?
MR. LA FOLLETTER: This is a separate exhibit and distribution was made to the bench last week.
I, Curt ROTHENBERGER, lately Under-Secretary in the Reich Ministry of Justice (1942 - 1943) declare on oath and state as follows:
I was born at Cuxhaven on the 30th June 1896. I attended the Realschul in Eimsbuettel-Hamburg (1902 to 1905), and the Wilheln Gymnasium in Hamburg. (1905 to 1914). I studied at the Universities of Berlin (1914), Kiel (1915) and Hamburg (191901920). I served, my preparatory period in Hamburg (1920 to 1922). In March 1920, I passed, my Referendar (provisional Law) Examination; in April 1920 my Doctor examination, and in June 1922 my Assessor (Assistant Judge) Examination.
I served in the first world war from 1915 to 1918, last as a Lieutenant of the Reserve. I received the Iron Cross 1st and 2nd Class. In 1937 and 1933 I took part in 4 weeks' maneuvers. My highest rank was a Captain of the Reserve.
I joined the NSDAP on 1 May 1933. My membership number was at first about 1,300,000. Later (about 1936) it was brought down to approx. 880,000. Since approx. 1937 and until 1942 I held the position of Gaurechtsamtsleiter. As such I also belonged to the Leadership Corps. I was, however, neither a member of the SA nor of the SS. My highest rank in the Party was that of Dienstleiter (1942 - 1943), I belonged to the National-Socialist Jurist's lead (Rechtswahrerbund.) Humburg from 1934 to 1942 as Gaufuehrer. Later on (1942 - 1943) I was temporarily deputy leader of the National-Socialist Rechtswahrerbundes. I belonged moreover to the NSV, the RDB, the RLB and the RKB.
My professional career was as follows:
From 1922 to 1924 I acted assistant Judge in Hamburg. In 1925 I was appointed Landrichter. In 1927 I was appointed Regierungsrat, and in 1929 Oberregierungsrat. In 1931 I became Landgerichtsdirektor, and in 1933 Justizsenator in Hamburg. From 1935 to 1942 I was President of the District Court of Appeal in Hamburg.
At this point, there is an insert in handwriting.
"Other positions I held were:
"President of the Prize Court Hamburg "Honorary Professor for Civil Law "Chairman of the Reich Sea Court (Reichsoberseeamt) "German Representative at the International Court of Arbitration, The Hague.
