This paper looks to explore the foundations and jurisdiction of the Nuremberg Trials through their formulation within the London Agreement of August 1945, followed by an examination of the character and case of Julius Streicher, a vile anti-Semitic publisher and party figure. He was found guilty of Crimes Against Peace and sentenced to be hanged. This paper is not an attempt to defend or condone any actions made by any one of the defendants of the Nuremberg Trials, nor those responsible for any mentioned atrocities committed during the time of the Third Reich and World War II. This paper serves as an examination of the genesis of the London Agreement and performance of the Nuremberg Trials in relation to the case of Julius Streicher. It is driven by the following three guiding questions: 1) Did the International Military Tribunal, through its foundations within the London Agreement of August 8, 1945, give its defendants a sufficient platform to adequately defend themselves? 2) Did the various positions within the Nazi Regime Held by Julius Streicher serve as reliable evidence to prove his guilt in the charges of Conspiracy and/or Crimes against Humanity? What about his Publications? 3) What were some of the phenomena that led to the Indictment and then subsequent death sentence for Streicher? Historians have had positive and negative reviews of these trials, and as is concluded from this examination of the case of Julius Streicher, the Nuremberg Trials are full of discrepancies. The records of the court along with the evidence presented throughout the trials serve as an excellent form of history that showcases the concerted effort made by the victorious nations meant to pave the way for a more civilized and humane society. The Nuremberg Trials acted as a formality in which the Allied Powers carefully selected its offenders and punished each individual perpetrator to quickly and efficiently extinguish the Nazi Party and its atrocious ideology.