Germany'S MINISTRY FOR CHEATURES AND MORAV, PRAGUE (1906) 1939 - 1945 (1965), inv. 1136, sig. 110-11/74

Page 33

English Translation

- 11 - 20 were able to give. (See this case in the lawsuit Prof. Dr. Grimm for foreign exchange crimes and Prague protocols Gestapo I and II. ) Likewise, in this investigation the falsification of the csl. land registers, already revealed by Dr. Anders in 1936, was proved and thus the fact that the c sl. state was not legally owned by the Coburger liegen=en ( 8o ooo ha ). ( see Prague Protocols of the Prague State Police I and II Coburg. ) Finally, the most personal enrichment was proved by ministers and beants, especially Dr. Hödgas, whom Dr. Bennesch had covered for years. These investigations were also made available in a most loyal manner to all, even the Czech members of the prescribed arbitration commission. A counter-evidence did not take place, especially since President Dr. Vozenilek of the csl. Bodenamt ex=culpted himself, he had as anant the instructions Minister = president Dr. Hodgas u-a- Folge é had to afford, in order not to run himself danger. ( Vozenilek was always free-footed and gave this devastating report on his Ant completely uninvolved; he first denied the double sale of the estate, then recognized his signature, but could not explain it.) Thus, the Prague Protocols of the Secret State Police constitute nothing more than a complete confirmation of the feasts of walking. State Police Vienna from l938, which later had Prince Coburg attacked as a right-hand bending. It is from no side, neither by the secret state police, nor by the Czech officials heard, nor from the Reichsprotector a word of complaint of this by Dr. Another demand for investigative activity or the total credibility of the investigations carried out by him in a system of exploitation of rich German interests, which has been complicated for more than eight years, is to this day to the knowledge of Dr. In other words, the Court of First Instance, in its judgment in Case C-342/96, and the Court's judgment in Joined Cases C-432/96 and C-335/96, has held that the Court has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 85(1) of the EEC Treaty.