Vilis HāznersDOJ INS Post-Trial Brief—Annotated

We would refine the INS's question as: "Why would Hāzners be at the gate?" As its answer, the INS submits its "judge a book by its cover" syllogism as evidence: if A wears the same uniform as B and B wears the same uniform as C, then A is C. It is preposterous to contend Hāzners was at the ghetto gate based on wearing a uniform shared by thousands. The INS might as well contend he was standing there because he had two legs.

Moreover, the INS's entire case is built on organizational ties which do not actually exist. Veiss reported operationally to the Wehrmacht; Hāzners was Veiss' adjutant only. The INS's Rube-Goldbergesque contention that there is an organizational basis for Hāzners to be at the Ghetto gate is utter speculation with no basis in fact.

When accusing someone of war crimes, one would expect identification through more rigorous means than word of mouth, particularly as testimony established that Hāzners had no reason to be at the Prefecture.

According to a news article we located (Jewish Floridian, Friday, June 15, 1868, Page 3-A): "After several postponements to accommodate a government witness who is a West German prosecutor and expert on Latvian war crimes, the government and defense attorneys have agreed to a stipulation to accept a deposition from this witness. Instead of a public hearing, the government now has 30 days to file its final briefs before Judge Anthony DeGaeto. Following that, Ivars Berzins, Hazners' attorney, will also be given 30 days to respond." [May 17th was date proceedings had been scheduled to resume after the last postponement.]

As indicated earlier, "Kārtības Dienests" (literally, "[keeping of] order service") was properly translated at its inception—as the INS themselves indicated prior in this brief—as Ordnungs–Hilfspolizei. In trial testimony it was established that Hāzners's service had been improperly translated into German as Schutzmannschaft instead of Selbstschutz.

The INS disproves its own contention of a precise and unambiguous one-to-one relationship between Latvian and German organizational terminology. Even accepting that the "Kārtības Dienests" was at some point organizationally subordinated to the Schutzmannschaft, this implies nothing about Veiss' command or Hāzners's duties as his adjutant, particularly as they continued to be operationally subordinated to the Wehrmacht.

We should also note that the police at the Rīga Prefecture were subordinated to the Sicherheitsdienst.

The INS builds its case on syllogistic fallacies of no distinction, from indicting individuals solely on their uniform to, based on the same uniform, accusing all to have been Holocaust collaborators and all equally likely to be at the ghetto gate. This contention of homogeneity and universal Holocaust collaboration is fundamentally flawed and historically inaccurate. The INS crowns its piling on of irrelevant charges by associating Hāzners with Latvians it alleges administered concentration camps, yet no Latvian quisling "administered" any operation, any camp, for the Nazi occupation.

The Germans opened the first and only concentration camp in Latvia, Kaiserwald, in March of 1943. Hāzners was stationed in Abrene at the time and joined the Latvian Legion in May, 1943. The only purpose for the INS to allude to concentration camps here was to lay as many horrors of the Holocaust as possible at Hāzners's doorstep.