Amendmentat saying e. T. Is not person wouldnt help. And so constitutional amendment a dont want to leave people with a kind of dispairing feeling. On Citizens United, i dont really know how to work my way out of that box. Of i think if you read the if y treatment, youll say, at least i understand a little more wheru they were coming from. Fr it doesnt seem soo crazy, and d some of the Simple Solutions su dont seem so workable. Able. And just, knowledge is power, being able to understand why yoo shouldnt let people pull the wool over your eyes and say, here is a separate solution thae should make you feel a bit utio better. Im ansh academic, and to some extent thats a strange breed. Were you surprised at roberts vote in obama care . No, in fact, i went on television, on msnbc and elsewhere, both before the oral argument and after, saying s roberts woulday cast the decisi uphold the individual ower mandate. Because i knew that roberts kn basic views are quite ws are libertarian, he thinks taxes arx not as coercive. Coercion is a big thing. Co taxes are as coercive as directt regulation. Ifre government hassed power toa make you buy insurance, they f could throw you in jail for not. Doing it here. All theyre doing is raising your taxes a bit, and not to a a degree that actually makes you l do ity. Yo inu fact, the tax add on that u have to pay if you dont buy the insurance is typically less dollars than the Insurance Premium would be. Be. So i made those statements, Rush Limbaugh said this guy should be committed. Hes crazy, theresit no way th robert the will vote that way, especially on the basis of the taxing power. Ised. Nt surprised. I was a little surprised that kagan and breyer joined robers,a scalia, alito and thomas to make a 72 decision that those statee that dont accept the broadenedd medicaid program, which is almost entirely paid for by theo federal government would lose t all their medicaid dollars. That was quite a departure from their liberal colleagues like sotomay sotomayor. I was a little surprised. I have a theory in the book whyg they did it. Since roberts is doing a te moderate thing and upholding thh purchase emandate, we can go along with him on this, and it wont make much difference theyt believed that every state would go along, they didnt realize y how many states would say no hurting people s o severely andy undermining obama care. They also got some benefits from the way they voted, that is they prevented roberts from going s further still and holding that you cant use money to influence state decisions. Even that would have been a more radical state decision, and it was possible. By offering to join limb on the basis that this was like a gun to the head of every state, because it would hurt them so u much to pay the penalty of all getting rid of all of medicaid, by going along, they prevented it from being more drastic. He had five votes anyway, but hd they enabled him to get seven. You partially answered something that was on my mind ai you talk. To a layperson, when you see the 54 on one part of the obama care and the 72 on the other, l it looks like horse trading. Im curious to what degree you i see horse trading as a common part of the decision making. I dont think it was straight out horse trading, because the chief justice already had five votes to strike down the medicaid mandate. He didnt need the other two. Or its always nicer to be the author of a 72 decision. Ink he i dont think he needed those votes. If he needed t them, it would b plausible. There are few cases in which justices seem to do that. Partly because they care, not only about the bottom line in p thisa case, they care about ther legacy. They know that they are laying y down a precedent. The Supreme Court is the only branch of our National Government that has an s a obligation not imposed by the constitution, but imposed by pod tradition, of writing opinions o in which each justice, either by saying something or joining in an opinion or joining a descent explains what he or she is reasoning that leads them to that conclusion. Or no other branch does that. Members of congress can vote and then go home. The president can take action or not action, its up to him how much to say to the people. Because they have to rationaliz people. Peoplethem like alito are still young. Elena k they dont want to lay down a land mine that will blow up under their feet. Er al how would the court deal wh state law and federal law . It seems like not enforcing federal law is not a long term solution. Utcongress, ityzed may be the best thing available. Its not a matter of not enforcing federal law its a matter of enforcing the law. People who came here innocently when they were children who were brought here by their parents, deciding not to support them. Awy i think its within the president s prerogatives. It may a not be a long term solution. Its an exercise. Stic Justice Kennedy struck d doma. It seemed like the decision was bigger than it could have been g like it was doing some serious work there. One of the possibilities in t the defense of marriage act, which said, even if you are a married couple in a state that allows same sex couples to marrs the federal government which usuallywhic defers to the state definitionsof of family l trea relationships will treatt you a unmarried, and youll use tax bi benefits, about 1,000 Different Things youll lose. That when the Supreme Court struck that ndown, it by no means meaw itas would. It was quite clear, the four justices, four nominated by democrats, would regard that law as completely inconsistent with principles of liberty and equality and dignity. S. The fact that the federal w government wasas interfering wi state prerogatives in an indirect way won the have bothered them very much. They would have been troubled to join an opinion that rested entirely on that rational. Because that could come back to bite them. Ite if its not up to any federal institution to decide whether same sex couples can marry or not, then when it comes to the ultimate challenge, when some e, states say, we want to ban same sex marriage here, the federal government might be powerless to intervene. What was unclear was where kennedy would go, and on what wt ground. One possibility, since kennedy y is a strong advocate of states rights is that he would o invalidate doma, solely on the basis that the feds had no business telling the states that people that they think are legitimately married are unmarried for federal purposes. That would be purely a federalism decision. What i think youre referring te is, they went further than that, once the states lets say tht state of massachusetts has said that bill and john are legally married or that nancy and linda are legally married, for the r federal government to say sa anything other than that is to t insult their dignity. Theres no possible rational fo that, other than to say that ar they are second class citizens. That their union does not count as much as that of other people. Thats what kennedy said. He used federal state relationsr as a hook, but then he swung all the way across the stage and made everything turn on liberty, equality and dignity, which is why every lower court case since that decision in windsor has said that regardless of any rea federal state rdelement, when a state decides that two people cannot marry, even though theyre otherwise eligibleen ane even though they love each otheh and want to form a permanent jub relationship justec because sex, theyre of the same sex, every lower court has said we cant rationalize, understand the windsor opinion if we dont go all the way here. In fact scalia did everybody a d favor saying, now that youve said this, youre bound to take the next step. D this and thats going to come back t bite him. Yes . Could you tell us if you had the opportunity to rewrite one of the amendments which one it would be, and if there isnt a second, could you explain why . If i had an opportunity to rewrite one of the amendments, e which would it be . I had a public officsher whoe the final galley, if you haveo any changes in the constitution you would like to make, this is the time to make them. I think what he meant was, if you have any corrections in you, text, this is the time to make them. Am i think the second amendment, t though its not something of which im a great fan, because im not myself a believer in th importance of guns as a way of protecting people. The seco they protect them more than the hurt them. Muscl if we were to get rid of it as s Justice Stevens proposes we do, the idea that all of a sudden wf would have universal registration, all kinds of l safety requirements, you have v to, severe restrictions on gun ownership, thats ath fantasy, h thing that prevents powerful restrictions on gun ownership in this country, is not the secondc amendment, but the first the ability of the National Rifle association and others to exerto powerful influence and the fact that for many people in this country, this is a voting issue when they are on the pro gun side. Getting rid t of the second ecod amendment would have very little positive effect in terms of of t those who favor stronger efforto to secure gun safety and reduce the carnage, but would have lots of negative effects. That a lot of people would say, now w that youve gotten rid of a of second amendment, we have stuff we would like to do in the first, maybe the fourth, and maybe the fifth and the sixth. One of the reasons that its so dangerous to tinker with the t bill of rights, and this goes t your question of an amendment to get rid of Citizens United by yc changing the understanding of the First Amendment, is that once you start, its hard to gg know where you t stop. Like its sort of like mississippi, i know how to spell it, but i go dont know how far to go and how to go on. I wanted to ask im from aus ausz where you managed to eliminate huge gunfire episodes . You see the court, you worry about the political awli answerb and all the rest. Im sorry, maybe from an outsider to do that,n of the modern democratic nations, the Supreme Court as the umpire to use your earlier analogy with some questioning, the umpire is quite visible in america. And i wonder if that had risen at the time where the constitution was written that there was it was such a radical experiment going into democracy, that in that processi of developing the whole new constitutional structure. Wa there was a fear of giving too much power to the people and their representatives and i there was a whether the call with marshall and addison e gave itself much more power as a kind of elite to control the roh excesses of the people and thei representatives. And, therefore, underlying all this is a basic mistrust of the people. Well, i think the constitution as a whole manifests lots of disrupt of the people, distrust of the masses t that they would somehow cancel all their debts and injure the stability of the financial inju system, people like Alexander Hamilton were deeply concerned about that. The Marshall Court though many t people regard what it did in 1803, 1805 really moved rather r cautiously, that is, even thougs it invalidated one narrow narrow provision of the judiciary act of 1789 in marbury, the next time the court invalidated any part of an act of congress was 1857 in the rather infamous justly infamous case of dread scott versus sanford, the courtr was really keeping a sort of m damaclese over the political br branches, getting them to take their oath more seriously, by t threatening if it didnt it might come down upon them. It it wasnt exercising that powere with the kindrc ofis frequency c vigor that had has in years since. Then in thes period of the 1890 to 1937 the court went quite wild striking down all kinds ofw social economic regulation, i there was a constitutional revolution at that point about e not because of courtca packing, but because of death, a lot of m the old members of the court fd died, fdr had a chance to replace them, we got a court that was much more differential toial politics. Except for certain areas where it has been since the 1940s, the pervasive disrupt of majorities of the people, that they would gang up on minorities, racial and gender and other minorities, and they would not treat ental fundamental rights seriously, what weve done in the end is strike a balance in which there are some areas where the court t is moreri active, others less. And it would be sort of a long process to engage in the full ee debate over i whether the courth has struck the balancee right. The Current Court is moving again rather frighteningly to some people in the direction of reviewing laws that affect the c economy in a serious way, for example, laws that were passed e in vermont, to make it harder for pharmaceutical companies tok jack up the drugs by getting the information about drugs to drug certain doctors so that theys would prescribe more costly drugs. The court struck that down oosn the basis of the First Amendment. Ent. Sotomayor joined the conservatives in that, and breyer went almost apoplectic. He said this is a return of theu loughnerrn area, the period fro the 1890s to 1937 when the court was striking down economic regulation rather loosely. Ather because if you strike down an o economic regulation, simply rel because itat deals with speech i one way or another, it deals de with information,al informationn our society is at the heart of almost everything. Almo and using the First Amendment that way could give the court mt the kind of power that i think is presupposed in your question. Some people think that is s exactly whats right, because c the ability of government to interfere in our economic livesc is lincompatible with the premises of liberty. Other people think that t meaningful liberty requires government interference and the safety net. But i think this court, if it pe had one or two more people likel roberts, alito or scalia may go dangerously in the direction that in 1937 we abandoned. You just mentioned that ntioe informationd in our society is crucial and critical. Whats your view of some of the Supreme Court justices who have changed the wording of some of their opinions after their ter issued. Are you being an academic, im suren study every opinion to see which way i found some real doozies. Youre not it does bother me, but what happens is, the and its notf just part of the current insatiable instantaneous news e, cycle. Theres been a lot of demand from decades ago to know exactly what the court decided the very moment it decided it. The Printing Office of the court as it used to be, now they may have something a little more fat fancy, the Printing Office usedt to come out with slip opinions within o minutes of the decisio and because they were produced so quickly, there often was a slip in the slip opinion. And it would sometimes reveal something the justices thought their latest draft had fixed. I n one thing i noticed, when the Supreme Court in 1992 reaffirmer the core of roe versus wade in a case called planned parenthood of pennsylvania against casey, ifof you carefully read the you rehnquist descent you can tell from the very first opinion thaa it was a majority opinion, it ba was going to be a majority over opinion overruling row versus wade. That got patched up when kennedy, suitor and oconnor as a group decided that it was important for stability of the society and for the equal status roe versus wade ade not be overruled. They patched it up, and so a lot of students it turns out none of my colleagues teaching constitutional law anywhere in the country seems to know that, i thought everyone knew it. Cons but people study this decision as though it was sort of ordained that the court would e not get rid of roe versus wade,f it came within inches of doing exactly that. Came wi how to solve that problem, im c not really certain, you could make the country wait before tht court announces an opinion. Opino but thats rather difficult. E wl especially when the whole country ise hanging by its finr nails on a case like obama carem or some other case. So you announce it and then you sort of clean up the opinion, but i think there should be muce more journalistic integrity about the way and academic integrity about not making changes, sort of sub rosa, i think if the court is going to make a change that actually ally changes the meaning of what it initially announced, it should d have an obligation to make that clear with some kind of air atta sheet or supplement. This will be the last t question. Thank you, professor for you book, for your presentation, for your work. I was stuck for the freedom of r speech interpretation of the court when they upheld Citizens United. And i believe that for the criticism that i heard here about the individual judges brings a more profound question, and that is, that as the american democracy is turning into a plutocracy, is the court a reflection of that kind of change . Ome some think its a partialh cause of that kind of change, others think its as reflection i think its more complicated ultimately than that. The aren rt courte rules as itt does in Citizens United, is not a belief that Corporate Power and wealth should dominate our society. But tya belief that government cannot be trusted to decide whose voices should carry weight. Itsy an antigovernment igoven decision, much more than a Pro Corporation or a plutocratic bee decision. Itsn somewhere between anarchyt and daze a mistrust of rts government. Many of the courts decisions e making it easier for businesses to prevail over individuals, ini reflect as ivi try to show in th book, not so much a bias in i favor of bign business as a mistrust of litigation and of the trial process as a way of solving problems. When you focus on what it is wy that drives the justices, ves motivates them, that may give us a better idea of what kinds of o questions to ask, and what kinds of things to look for in the backgrounds of the next set of justices who will come along when some of those who are agin out, as it were leave the court. So it is opposed mistrust of the government to the trust on the but the court has said you can fully disclose all of their contributions online and instantaneously. You can perform structured appropriations to make it easier for shareholders to take into account. And, as some of the justices pointed out in Citizens United, it is, in fact, the mom and pop kompgs, the tiny corporation, the subchapter s, not the giant, publicly traded corporation that benefits from decisions like Citizens United. So the story is a lot more intricate and complicated than some people talk about. Marcel will share with us his experience of the haul cost. If theres time at the end of our program, we will then have an opportunity for you to ask marcel a few questions. The life stories of hall kaus survivors. We have prepared a brief slide presentation to help with his introduction. Marcel was born in poland, a small town part of ukraine. The arrow on this map of europe from 1933 points to boland. Marcels father, jacob, worked as an accountant while his mother raised marcel and his younger sister, arena. In this photo, we see marcel and his mother, laura, in 1934. Germany attacked poland beginning world war ii. This is a historical photograph of german troops parading through warsaw after the surrender of poland. On june 42 rnd, 1941, germany attacked soviet territory. Within a few weeks, occupied by german forces. In 1942, members of marcels family, including his grand father, were deported to exterm nax camps where they were murdered. In the fall of 1942, marcell and his family were forced to the ghetto. Before the liquidatioliquidatios family is seen in this photo taken in 1947 or 1948. From left to right, we see marcells uncle abraham, his parents, and his uncle, abraham groober. In 1957, marcel earned a degree and emigrated to the United States in 1961 where his wife, anya, joined him in 1963. After a very successful period with the u. S. Post office, he transferred to the u. S. Army in 1962. Although marcel officially retired from the army in 1994, he remained a consultant until 2010. He is now fully retired, although not totally true because of his work with the museum. Marcel and aerks nya have a son, adam, who lives in richmond. They have two dprand children, mary, age 12 and jack who is 14. They are both in the International Back back lar yet program. They do considerable work as volunteers for this museum. They translated portions of the ringleblooms, notes from the waur saw ghetto, a 25,000 page collection of diaries and other documents detailing the events and lives of those who lived in the doomed warsaw ghetto. To help with this exhibit, they revued and transcribed several filmed testimonies. They are quite a team. Marc marcel speaks publicly about various settings. As well as at synagogues in colleges. He was a speaker at an event . Gettysbu gettysburg, pennsylvania. Just yesterday morning, he spoke to 300 seventh graders. Six of his writings can be found online on the museums web site. And with that, id like to ask you to join me in welcoming our first person, mr. Marcel driber. Marcel, thank you for being our first person today. World war ii began in september, 1939 when germany attacked poland from the west quickly following the soviet union attacking poland from the east. But before we turn to that time to the war, tell us a little brit about your life, your family, your community in the years before the war. The town where i was born was poland when i was born. And now its ukraine. So, you know, the place stays good in one place, but the borders shift. And this is sort of quite typical for central and Eastern Europe until now. Well, now, we can see that putting the strength to do something similar. But thats not the subject of our conversation. Some things dont change. Some things never change. No matter how hard we work. So the population was about 4 e 40,000 people. And there were about 12,000 poles. About 1215,000 ukraines and 15 15,000 jews. The relations with the neighbors were friendly. The jews had their own clubs, their own libraries, and they had Even High School and Jewish High School and theaters, it was quite a cultural town. Most of the Jewish Population were religious jews who lived their life from being tailors and craftsman and mer chants. But there was also a group of jews who were more asimilar lated. They spoke polish, they were doctors, lawyers, and leaders ot community. At that time, starting in 1933, germany became what it was during holocaust, hitler came to power. And some of his ideas were spreading all over the world. And it also came to poland. So there were groups of poland that were supporting what hitler was preaching. And the life of the jews became a little more dangerous or not as comfortable as it was before. There was, for example, something call ed a photo for jewish students to go to college and there were the jews could be officers in the polish parody. T they could be private but not officers. So those that wanted to start, they would have to go to western europe. And my wifes parents and my wifes father, was educated in france. We had nice, you know, synagogues and life was formal. Until then. My father was an accountant in a lumber factory. But he also was a lumber technician. He would go to the woods and determine what trees would be ready for the factory. And i remember once in the wintertime, this was before the war, i must say. And i was so enchanted, i didnt even tell my father that my toes were freezing. I froze a couple of my toes. But i was very happy to go on that trip. Marcel, shortly after the germans invaded poland on september 1st, 1939, on the 17th of september, russia attacked poland. And as a result of that, you and your family would live under Russian Occupation until june, 1941. Tell us what that period of time was like when the russians came and occupied your community and what life was like for you under the soviets. The russians attacked poland on september 17th, 1939. Only 17 days after the germans had come. There was a agreement of nonaggression between russia and the germans. So the russians attacked poland and most of the polish Defense Forces were on the western side fighting the germans. So the russians went through. They took and released the lowerranked soldiers. But they kept the officers and pow camps and april 10th, 18940. This is a very tragic date in the history of the polish of poland. 22,000 officers were killed in that camp. Most of these people were civilians that were professionals. And during the war, they were taken to the army. And among them were some jewish doctors and lawyers that were killed. So youll see the cemetery or the monument for that slot right there. The russians tried to impose kmoounism. They try todied to impose commu on the population. They forced people to accept russian citizenship. And, again, my wifes parents didnt want to accept that so they were sent to siberia for that. They confiscated all the private factories. They confiscated homes, you know, big apartment houses and they send a lot of people that they considered enemies of the state to siberia. And among them were also my wifes parents. She usually comes here and i point at her. But since she listened to me yesterday and she said enough. Your birthday is may 1st. Which is a significant day in the communist world. Tell me act the significance for you. Well, this last may 1st, i celebrated my 80th birthday. So it was quite important to me. And my good friend from poland wrote me a letter and said you were destined to live only to the age of 8 because the germans had their plans for you. But you lived so far to 80 so you are a lucky fellow. And i sure am a lucky fellow. But, actually, i was born on april 30th about 11 30 or 11 00 in the evening. But since i was born in my grandparents house, there was a doctor there, but he didnt make any, you know, notes about that. My father went a few days later, my father went to register birth and he said he decided that maybe may 1st would be a better date. So, you know, it was the International Labor day of the kmooun mistists all over the world. So he changed the day to may 1st. But dont tell anybody. Its our secret. Its our little secret. And several of your uncles joined the russian army at that time. Is that right . Well, they didnt really join, they were drafted into it. Maybe ill come to that. Yes. Okay. So you lived under the soviet occupation until 1941. But soon after, germans came in and for jews, their life changed even more dramatically and quickly. Tell us what it was like once the germans came in. I will finish talking about the Russian Occupation. The western part of poland was under german ok ewe pax from september of 39 until the end of the war. And the germans sfarted the extermination of the jews right away. The warsaw ghetto was open in 1940. There was no television. But some people there western poland managed to escape and came to our town. And they told us what was going on. So when the germans attacked, some of the siblings of my fathers demand all of the men that were at the certain anch. I mean, you know, all of them were take iing to the russian al they followed the russian army as they retreated to russia. Of the uncles that were taken to the russian army, two of them fought and died on the front. n. And the others survived. They knew what waited for them if the germans came. So they level with the russian auralmy and they also survived. And adults that were deported, like, for example, my wifes parents were deported. They and she was born, actually, in siberia. Her father was a doctor. So he delivered her. These people were actually saved by deportation. 90 of those that were deported to siberia survived. Or maybe 85 . On the other hand, those that stayed in poland, about 90 were killed. So with the agreement of the germans not to look at it, the ukraines started, you know, a slaughter of the jews and they were they brought very primitive, uneducated peasants from nearby and they went from jewish home to jewish home and beat people up. They took whatever they wanted to take. Things they took were the albums of photos. They didnt need the photos, they just wanted to take the leatherbound albums. So they shook out the photos in the mad on the ground. And a neighbor, a crew yukraine neighbor picked up these photos and kept them. After the war, my father went to see whats left of the grand parents house and, of course, everything was ruined. But the gentleman came out and gaifr my father about 50 photos. Some of which we saw. Well, all of them. We only saw one. The one, i am with my mother in a carriage. That picture was taken in august, 1934. I donated all of these photos to the holocaust museum. If anyone is interested, if you google my name, you can see these photos and see my stories that i write. Also, at the same time, my father went sent from his war to take some courses at the university. And my aunt rifka went with him. And as the germans came, june 30th, and they started ukraine started the program at the same time. So they announced that theyll take the jews to do some work and then theyll let them go back home. My aunt told my father that he shouldnt go because le had some problems with his legs. So she covered him with the down cover on the bed when they heard the germans coming. And the germans,when they came, she went to supposedly to go to work and she never came. They slaugtsderred and humiliated 5,000 jews. They killed 200 jews and wounded 8,000. Those these were the first two or three days of german occupation. They hoped that she will come. Marcel, i know theres many, many things that you wont have the time to tell us. But one thing i would like you to talk about, if you dont mind, is when you went with your nanny, if you wouldnt mind telling that . Yes, yes, of course so situation in our house was quite critical. Well, the germans, when they came, they put out their rules of existence, the jews were not allowed to sit in the parks and jews were not allowed to walk on the sidewalks but in the middle of the road. They were supposed to wear the star of david on their arm bands and so on and so forth. There was also the system of food rations. That people were entitled to about 200 calories per day. Can you imagine that . So my fathers father, the one that you saw in the picture, he was a widower. So he came to live with us. And my mothers mother, who became a widow the first day. And my fathers sister, rifka, who, with her two children, came to live with us because her husband was one of the uncles that were taken to the russian army. Only my father, they just couldnt take care of 24e78s. There was absolutely no chance. So they did stay with us. And father managed to barter things for food. He would Exchange Wedding ring for a loaf of bread. But we were hungry, but we were not starved. But it was quite crowded in our two room, threeroom apartment. I dont remember. There were my family and my aunt and two children and my grandfather, grandfather. And it was very crowded. Got very, you know, hygienic. My nanny loved me very much. r i was a very cute little woi. Ca, she would come and bring us some milk or a loaf of bread or, you know. She was a friend of the family, really. And in one of the visits, she looked at me and i looked sort of pitiful and she said to my mother, ill take him with me to my house. And give him some fatty food. F give him some food, give him a bath and then ill bring him back in a few weeks. And so she did. I went to her. And two, three days later, my sister, my sister started bothering my mother. About i want my brother back. I want to play with my brother. Why dont you go and pick up and bring him back home. And so my mother said, okay, well do it. And she took off her arm band which was if she would be caught, she would be killed. This was a crime that deserved killing. So she took it off and then went to we went with my sisters. She was pregnant at that time. She was in labor exactly at the moment my mother came. I was sitting in the corner scared. I was a cuteie of no help. So my mother started boiling water. Thats what she could do. There was no talk about getting a doctor or even a midwife or anything like that. We were jewish and this was dangerous. So my moefr help mother helped deliver the baby but the baby was still. It was late so she said why dont you stay with us and well go home tomorrow. So the next morning x her husband came back from would recollect. He was working the night shift. And he was terribly surprised and not happy to see us there. He says there is a nazi on the germans. The germans called them achaunds. They were killing them. This was a killing. He says the germans are killing the jews. They are gathering them, taking them to the camps and if they would come here and see you, we would all be dead. You have to you have to leave. You have to go. So he gave my mother a couple slices of bread and told us to go. There was a dirt road in the front of the house and then there were wheat fields, it was august of 1942. Wheat fields and then there was some little trees behind it. So he said well, you can go there and try to find a place to hide. Early in the morning we left and went to look for a place to hide. We didnt get to the woods because mother found the indentation in the ground and this is where we laid down and mother had a raincoat. It was the color of the wheat. And we laid there quietly waiting for what was to happen. And soon, we started hearing the germans screaming rous, rous which means out and shots. And people screaming of pain. And begging of mercy and shots again. It lasted maybe 15, 20 minutes and then it quieted. And then another half an hour later, the same story over again. It was like four or five times my sister called it the symphony of pain. Symphony of terror. And about 7 00, 8 00 in the evening, it stopped. The screaming and shouting and shooting stopped. And to we got up, waited until another hour or so. With got up and start started walking towards yanchas house. As we came to the road, looked around and there was a german soldier with a big dog. So we thought this was it. He was armed and he wasnt going for a walk. He was looking for jews, obviously. But he saw my mother was blond and blueeyed and my sister was blond and blueeyed. I also have blue eyes. It was in the family. He looked at the two women and didnt see me because my jewish nose would give me away. And he just turned eed around a walked away. It was sort of a miracle, but i think theres two reasons that it went like that. Normally, the germans would go in pairs. They never went hunting for people in single because they could get a human reaction and sort of try to save the person. But he was by himts. There was no one that told his commander that he left some people there. So he turned around and walked away. We came to yanch oorkss house and then we stayed there, again, through the niegtsd. Next morning, my father came. There was no telephones. There was no ways of communicating. We didnt know if father was alive or not. But father was staying in the dormitory in the factory where he was working. They made a special booth for him because he was not allowed to work with the gentiles. The jews, whose families were killed, they stayed there in the dormitory and they ate and slept there. So father slept there. Came to pick us up and took us home. We walked to the house and the house was erpty. And the family was gone. All of those families. All of those family members that ifrs telling you about, they were gone. They were the germans put them on a place of, you know, where they kept them for two days without food, without water, without sanitary facilities. And those that still survived were put in cattle trains and taken to the camp. They were taken to an extermination camp. And there were two kinds of kavrps. There were labor camps and extermination camps. Camps like awe swits where people would work until they fell down and were killd. And then there were camps that they were killing camps. This camp was a killing camp. In this one, 800 were killed. Out of the 12,000. And trrp more like that. So marcel, its now you and your parents and your sister. And in the fall of 1942, the gnat sills forced you into a ghetto in drahobich. My father realized that the ghetto, it will soon be liquidated. Because the plans of germans were very well known. So he decided that he has to take us out of the ghetto and hide us. While he was working in lumber factory, he prepared a place for us to hide. He also put some planks of the fence down and prepare d for us to get there. He bribed the policeman that took what they did, the jews lived in the ghetto, but they worked in all kinds of places. So the policeman came to the place at 5 00 in the morning and the jews were waiting there to be taken to their places. And they would take them to each group to different place. And then they would be picked up. So father, one day, one other person wasnt supposed to come. So father took my mother, got dressed in a mens clothes and took my sister under her arm and father took me under his arm. Of course, we were very, very sad, as you can imagine, 200 calories a day. So father took us to this fact ri. He put us behind some bushes across the street from the fence to the lumber fact ory and said to me you stay here. Youre the man now. And ill take mother and take them inside the factory and then ill come and pick you up. As soon as he got up and left with them, i got quite panicy. I heard some stories about parents leaving their children behind. Around i wasnt really a man. I was eight years old. A scared, hungry kid