. NMT03-T1113
Volume III · Page 1113
the year 1938 and his property, therefore, surely being confiscated. I fail to understand why the court granted forma pauperis rights to the assignee, a Jew, without first consulting the authority for sequestration of property." |
| A note dated 24 February shows that Rothenberger had issued a directive to two ,judges of his district to the effect that every case involving the claim of the right of Jews to proceed in forma pauperis must first be submitted to him. On 5 March 1942 a directive was issued from the Reich Ministry of Justice in substantial conformity with the recommendation of the defendant Rothenberger. It provided: |
"In future the granting of rights of forma pauperis to Jews can only come into consideration if the carrying-out of the lawsuit is in the common interest, viz, in disputes concerning family rights (divorce in cases of mixed marriages, establishing the descent)." |
| After the enactment of the foregoing ordinance, and on 7 May 1942, a courageous president of the district court at Hamburg wrote to Rothenberger stating that in his opinion the right of Jews to proceed in forma pauperis would have to be granted. He added: |
"I am convinced that it is in the common interest that an Aryan cannot evade without further ado a ,just claim against him merely for the reason that the court denies the forma pauperis right to Jews." |
| Notwithstanding this protest, and on 22 May
1942, the defendant Rothenberger, in reliance upon the ordinance which was
based upon his recommendation, wrote to the president of the district court of
Hamburg that he considered it "adequate that the forma pauperis right
granted to the plaintiff Prenzlau be canceled. Please have this taken into
consideration by the court in a form which you deem appropriate." The foregoing narrative takes on additional significance when summarized. First, Rothenberger recommends to the Minister of Justice that it is desirable to deny to Jews the right to proceed in forma pauperis, but that such denial is inadmissible because there is no law to justify it. He recommends the passage of such a law. About 3 weeks later, no law having been passed, he recommends that the judges take a uniform line depriving the Jew of the right to proceed in forma pauperis. A specific case now arises in which the right was granted to a Jew, and the defendant Rothenberger receives veiled suggestions from the Gau economic advisor to the effect that defendants should not be allowed to compromise a case brought against them by a Jewish plaintiff because the court |
