Parliamentary interventions against Polanski's extradition
18.Jun 10    Interpellation, 10.3610 – Freysinger Oskar, Trahison diplomatique par négligence (Original)
18.Jun 10    Interpellation, 10.3598 – Vischer Daniel, Extradition de M. Polanski. Bases légales (Original)
18.Jun 10    Interpellation 10.3595 – Baumann J. Alexander, Affaire Polanski. Incohérences (Original)
7.Jun 10   Fragestunde, 10.5247 – Baumann J. Alexander, Roman Polanski
7.Jun 10   Fragestunde, 10.5214 – Freysinger Oskar, Polanski-Affäre
11.Dez 09    Motion 09.4269, Landesschädigung durch Missachtung bilateraler Verträge (English, français)
11 Dec 09   Motion 09.4269: Marc Rich case is precedent for refusing Roman Polanski's extradition
7.Dez 09    Fragestunde 09.5624, Gesuche um Auslieferung - Demandes d'extradition

AMICUS CURIAE, 19.1.10        Extracts from the California Superior Court decision No. A334139, 21.12.09
Authorities seen to support a more independent stand against extradition of persons & data, 11.12.09
Fünf Fragen an den Bundesrat zum Auslieferungsgesuch für Herrn Polanski, 17.6.10
In der Auslieferungs-Sache Polanski: Zum Recht auf Irrtum im Rechtsstaat, 11.5.10
Zur Frage der Zulässigkeit der Auslieferung von Roman Polanski, 23.4.10;  Notes
Hardball or Softball? Diamantball! How not to react to US pressures, 27.9.06
Rechtshilfe, Staatshilfe oder Unrechtsbeihilfe?   Season's Greetings to Roman Polanski, 19.12.10

Abstract   The refusal of the Swiss Government to heed the US extradition request for Roman Polanski is seen to be the result of a collective effort by Swiss lawmakers (see above) and other comrades-in-arms who, finally, were heard by a courageous magistrate, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf. 40 years of behind-the-scenes sherpa & political guerilla tasks conducted by the author on various good offices and other fronts thus culminated in another success - admittedly against considerable odds - in the defense of Swiss sovereignty, dignity and interests. The author acknowledges and thanks all - notably those listed below - who contributed to this achievement with their observations and suggestions. That includes the few who worked on parallel or even opposing tracks, thus allowing the author to redirect, adapt and fine-tune in time his own multi-dimensional efforts. In chronological order, those consulted include:
 

Patrick Martin Oskar Freysinger Eric Reyhl Bodo Elbert Hans-Rudolf Staiger Lorenz Erni, Zurich1) Hervé Temime, Paris2) Bart Dalton, Dallas3)4) Franz Blankart Jürg Egli Carlo Schmid Ulrich Bremi Gilbert Coutau Luzi Stamm Richard Anderegg Konrad Hummler Eric Delissy Hans Geiger Hans Hofmann

Markus Kündig Peter Boeckli Jean-René Mermoud Andreas Rued Patrick Sutter Claire-Lise Heinbach Valentin Oehen Harry-Ernest Wiler Gian Trepp Remo Gysin Rolf Spaeth Jean Hulliger Andreas Schweizer Sandi Gibbons Philip Wainwright Reid Weingarten,      Washington5) Lucius Caflisch Fritz Sturm

Mathias Krafft Gilles Petitpierre Robert Kolb Martin Schubarth Urs Behnisch Leonard Miller Robert Roth Daniel Jositsch Martin Nyffenegger Alexis Lautenberg Ulrich Zimmerli Dick Marty Rudolf Wyss René Scheidegger Hans Gartenmann Arnold Koller Franco Masoni Odilo Guntern Elisabeth Kopp

Leon Schlumpf Hans Grunder Yves Nidegger Ulrich Schluer Lukas Reimann Pirmin Bischof Daniel S. Miéville Denis Masmejan Jeff Norman Moreno Bernasconi Paul Gully-Hart J.Alexander Baumann Daniel Vischer Georges Kiejman, Paris6) Filippo Lombardi Klaus J. Stöhlker Markus Kamber Edgar Fasel

From the introduction to our analysis "Rechtshilfe, Staatshilfe oder Unrechtsbeihilfe?" of 21.10.2006:
   Anlässlich des diesjährigen amerikanischen Nationalfeiertags vom 4.Juli wies das Bundesgericht eine Beschwerde ab gegen die Offenlegung von Banktransaktionen zugunsten angeblicher terroristischer Vorkehren (1A.99.2006). Die "hinreichend verständlich formulierten" Vermutungen und Behauptungen der amerikanischen Gesuchsteller - so das Bundesgericht - genügten um, im Sinne des Rechtshilfevertrags von 1973 und zur Vermeidung einer "unzulässigen Beweisausforschung", "die Existenz einer vernünftigen Annahme zu überprüfen". Es sei im übrigen auch nicht nötig, den vorgebrachten Verdacht mit Beweisen zu stützen, "oder auch nur glaubhaft zu machen" (die authentische deutsche Vertragsversion setzt allerdings einen "begründeten Verdacht" voraus, in Anlehnung an die entsprechende Formulierung im CH-USA Vertrag von 1850: "genügend begründet und durch die nöthigen Aktenstücke unterstüzt"). Entsprechende Nachfragen bei der im Bundesamt für Justiz zuständigen Zentralstelle USA haben ergeben, dass das Vertrauensprinzip auf zwischenstaatlicher Ebene einer ernsthaften Hinterfragung der jeweils bloss formgerecht geltend zu machenden Straftatsvermutungen entgegenstehen soll, und dass die seit Jahren dergestalt geübte Rechtshilfepraxis gegenüber den USA auch auf Bundesgerichtsentscheide abgestützt sei (1A.57/2000; BGE 118 Ib 111 E.5b; 118 Ib 547 E.3a; 116 Ib 95 E.4; 115 Ib 68 E.3). In der Folge soll anhand der damaligen Parlamentsdebatte kurz untersucht werden, ob diese Praxis auch mit dem Willen des hierzulande massgebenden verfassungsmässigen Gesetzgebers zu vereinbaren ist. Und ob gegebenenfalls z.B. auch anlässlich der Neugestaltung der Finanzmarkt-Aufsicht entsprechende Kurskorrekturen vorgenommen und Leitplanken gesetzt werden sollten (red. Hervorhebung).
Literaturhinweise:   Peter Popp, "Gewährt die Schweiz einem anderen Staat Rechtshilfe, wenn kein Verdacht einer Straftat vorliegt?" Anwalts-Revue 10/2001, 6 f.;  Dominique Poncet et Vincent Solari, "Coopération judiciaire en matière pénale en l'absence de prévention suffisante", Revue de l'avocat, 10/2001, p.7ss;  Peter Popp, Grundzüge der internationalen Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, Basel 2001, 160;  Florian Baumann, "Das Bundesgericht zu flächendeckenden Rechtshilfeersuchen ("fishing expeditions") bei angeblich systematischem Tatvorgehen", SZW/RSDA 6/2000, S.319 (BGE 1A.57/2000);  Martin Schubarth "Zur Problematik der schweizerischen Praxis betreffend die Gewährung von Rechtshilfe an die USA", Kurzgutachten 28.10.06 (www.solami.com/schubarth.htm); "Sovereignty Principles & Extradition Aberrations", SIPA (.../extradition.htm); ...

Today then, we pay tribute to all those past, present and future lawmakers and magistrates whose oath to the Swiss Constitution was, is or will not merely be a lip service, and who understand, heed and further the principles highlighted in the Motion Früh 84.400  "Wahrung der Schweizer Souveränität".  It is a moment to recall and reflect on some other extraordinarily successful incidents of parliamentary, political and/or diplomatic bravery where, under the guidance of other enlightened lawmakers, Switzerland stood its ground on time-tested principles, was fully respected, and essentially obtained satisfaction in its relations with foreign countries:
-    Thus, in 1975, under the threat of refusing ratification of the "Versailles Treaty" of our time, ie the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Switzerland obtained from the US the concession to freely engage in research, development and production of contained nuclear explosion devices (laser fusion, etc.).
-    Thus, in 1981, on the background of the new French government's harassment of French clients of Swiss banks on Swiss soil, the Swiss Investors Protection Association was created by Swiss lawmakers, the Union suisse des arts et métiers, lawyers and specialists, who took on the fight against related bureaucratic deficiencies, bunglings and outright betrayals of fiduciary duties and diplomatic treasons. This included the badly negotiated, for hugely self-damaging amendment to the Swiss-French double-taxation agreement, and the landmark Interfipol, ie the OECD Convention on Administrative Assistance in Tax Matters of 1986 which provided particularly for an automatic exchange of fiscal data.
-    And thus, in the eighties and later, the US aggressions against Swiss sovereign rights, notably in the case of Marc Rich and his company, were successfully blunted when the Swiss Government rejected all unfounded extradition requests.

Less happy incidents seen to have emmanated from servile attitudes of Swiss officials towards their foreign, notably US colleagues include:
-    The Hans Walder doctrine (expert opinion in the BSI case, delivered in 1981 to his former homologue in New York, on the creation of an emergency situation in order to safely break bank secrecy, decried by Swiss lawmakers as "diplomatic treason").
-    The "primature legal assistance" cases denounced in Parliament in 1985 (Santa Fé, P+M).
-    The 1990 Swiss Parliament's PUK report on events related to the Justice Ministry (decrying its US desk's "servile" attitude vis-à-vis the US Drug Enforcement Agency; while on the basis of subsequent incidents, Senator Carlo Schmid, in 2004, declared in the Swiss Council of States: "... die USA sind im Moment kein Rechtsstaat nach unserem Standard.").

On this background, and in view of related developments and concerns, the not called-for spontaneous information of US authorities by some Swiss zealot officials on Mr.Polanski's forthcoming visit to Zurich, his subsequent arrest and extradition detention, and his lawyer's handling of his case, mobilised the energies which lead to the research and consultation efforts reflected in the specially set up website "Authorities seen to support a more independent stand against extradition of persons and data"
 

Key findings

1.    All extraditions of persons or data constitute acts of sovereignty which may be denied by the Federal Council or the Minister of Justice on grounds of sovereignty, security, ordre public and other essential national interests, even if the competent office or the Tribunal Federal approved same, and if the treaty in question does not explicitly mention this general principle of international public law. Accordingly, the principle was laid down in the Lex Helvetica motion 09.3452 of 2009 to deny, in the event, any legal or administrative assistance to states which practice fencing (keine "Hehlerei von Staats wegen"). The Swiss/US legal assistance treaty of 1973 (SR 0.351.933.6), the US/EU legal assistance treaty of 2003 and, in particular, the ratification debate on the Swiss/US extradition treaty of 1990 (SR 21.3.91, AB 1991 II S 299-301) already clearly reflected - and bindingly at that - this political dimension of every extradition:
"Masoni, Berichterstatter ... Immerhin war die Kommission der Auffassung, dass die Präzisierung, wonach die Vertragsstaaten keinen Anspruch auf Auslieferung haben, sowie der Vorbehalt von anderen, überwiegenden nationalen Interessen beziehungsweise der Vorbehalt des Ordre public des ersuchten Staates in zukünftigen Verträgen ausdrücklich im Text zu erwähnen sind, damit kein Zweifel über ihre Zulässigkeit gemäss dem Grundsatz unserer Lehre und Rechtsprechung entsteht, wonach - anders als in den USA - die internationalen Abkommen dem nationalen Recht vorgehen. Die Departementsvertreter haben der Kommission zugesichert, dass trotz Nichterwähnung diese Vorbehalte selbstverständlich sind und beiden Vertragsstaaten bekannt sind. Sogar wenn das Bundesgericht im Einzelfall feststellen würde, dass die Voraussetzungen der Auslieferung erfüllt sind, bliebe die Auslieferung ein Hoheitsakt, zu dem der Bundesrat gemäss Artikel 102 Ziffer 8 der Bundesverfassung ermächtigt, aber nicht verpflichtet ist. Mit ändern Worten: Es gelten all diese Vorbehalte nach Auffassung des Departementes auch ohne ausdrückliche Erwähnung im Abkommen.
... Bundesrat Koller ...Es ist für den Bundesrat ganz klar, dass, wenn das Bundesamt oder auch das Bundesgericht eine Auslieferung grundsätzlich für zulässig erklärt hat, der Bundesrat - und zwar schon das Departement - eine Auslieferung aus höheren Landesinteressen verweigern kann. Das ergibt sich unseres Erachtens einmal daraus, dass die Auslieferung zur Aussenpolitik gehört. Wir haben also die entsprechende Verfassungsgrundlage in Artikel 102 Ziffer 8 der Bundesverfassung. Wie gesagt, es besteht kein Anspruch auf Auslieferung, sondern es ist ein Hoheitsakt, der insofern im Belieben der Landesregierung bleibt.
    Als eine weitere Rechtsgrundlage für diese Möglichkeit haben wir aber auch das Bundesgesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen. Dieses Gesetz sagt in Artikel 17 ausdrücklich: «Das Eidgenössische Justiz- und Polizeidepartement entscheidet im Falle von Artikel 1 Absatz 2.» In Artikel 1 Absatz 2 wird festgehalten, dass bei der Anwendung dieses Gesetzes den Hoheitsrechten, der Sicherheit, der öffentlichen Ordnung oder anderen wesentlichen Interessen der Schweiz Rechnung zu tragen ist. Ich glaube, damit habe ich die Frage von Herrn Masoni ausreichend beantwortet."

2.    The statute of limitation article 5 of the Swiss/US extradition treaty of 1990 (BBl 1991 I 96, SR 0.353.933.6) is erroneously formulated and needs to be adapted.

3.    Article 2 of the Swiss/US extradition treaty of 1990 explicitly refers to the national laws for determining what constitutes an extraditable offense and what not. This entails the right and the obligation to conduct a limited material examination of the charges underlying an extradition request. In the event of a sentence already passed down, a suspended sentence, a negotiated sentence obtained in the course of a plea agreement, or remaining time to serve, theoretical maximum sentences are irrelevant for determining the applicability of a treaty; instead specific and concretely applicable sentences apply exclusively and determine the outcome of this indispensable litmus test.

Comment

J-RM, 19.7.10    Tiens, à la faveur de l'affaire Polanski, la Suisse redécouvre les vertus de la lecture. En particulier des demandes d'entraide. Jadis traitée comme un acte purement formel, aucune vérification et encore moins une mise en cause des dires de l'autorité requérante n'était possible. Avec cette politique des trois singes, on aurait livré les yeux fermés Winkelried aux Autrichiens si ceux-ci l'avaient accusé de filouterie d'auberge. Ne l'oublions pas : l'Office central des Etats-Unis à Berne est une branche de l'administration fédérale suisse et non de l'administration américaine. Mais il est vrai qu'on pourrait s'y tromper... A moins que Polanski reste l'exception. L'application de la loi à deux vitesses : la violation du droit quand la presse n'en parle pas et le respect du droit quand la presse en parle.
 

Notes

¹⁾    In its decision RR.2008.308 of October 19, 2009, the Swiss Federal Penal Court noted:
6.3 Weiter macht der Beschwerdeführer geltend, Art. 5 AVUS sei in Analogie zum Europäischen Auslieferungsübereinkommen vom 13. Dezember 1957 und zu Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c IRSG dahingehend auszulegen, dass der Eintritt der Verjährung auch im ersuchten Staat einer Auslieferung entgegen stehe; die ihm vorgeworfene strafbare Handlung sei gemäss Schweizer Recht bereits verjährt, so dass eine Auslieferung nicht erfolgen könne (act. 10 S. 2 - 8).
    Mr. Polanski's Swiss lawyer, in his brief for obtaining his client's release from extradition detention, seems to have fought with a blunt weapon (arguing with analogy), while having overlooked sharp ones (consisting of the fully balanced statute of limitation clause of the Swiss/US extradition treaty of 1900 which, at the time of the alleged crime, was in force and could have been invoked successfully, notably on the basis of the current extradition treaty's article 25 §3, in the event in combination with the latter's article 24). This appears to have been less than helpful to Mr.Polanski's cause.
    Of course, the resulting exceptionally lengthy extradition procedure need not be due to Maître Erni's failure to respond positively to the author's early and repeated research, cooperation and coordination offers. But sticking to the familar customary legal track, ignoring the available political facilities and goodwill and, by default at least, even undermining parallel research and lawmaker efforts, have surely not enhanced the chances, or accelerated the indispensable and in fact decisive political process for, first, derailing and then, finally, for turning the administration's extradition habitus around by 180 degrees. To be sure, and in fairness to Mr.Polenski's lawyers, they may not have been familiar with the author's unorthodox working methods. And they may - not unreasonably - have been concerned about the prospect of having their case politically tangled up with the parallel debate about the Swiss/US administrative agreement on some UBS accounts, with Mr.Polenski's extradition eventually sought to serve to somewhat compensate for Switzerland's possible refusal to deliver on its promises to the US. On this, the author tried from the outset to dispell Mr.Polenski's and Maître Erni's apprehensions by stressing that both cases, in fact, could be helped on the proposed sovereignty-based nationalistic track. However, throughout, Maître Erni expressed scepticism as to the applicability of what the author saw as the key legal and political pathway, namely the ordre public and essential national interest reservations. Maître Erni even saw his interpretation of the law confirmed in the initial answers of the Federal Council to the Motion 09.4269 of 11 December, 2009. However, things had turned, when on July 12, 2010, it was the Swiss Minister of Justice herself, and not the formally "responsible" office, who terminated the nightmare and set Mr.Polanski free. And opposite appearances notwithstanding, it was not primarily legal manoeuverings which had decisively slowed the extradition juggernaught unleashed and promoted by Swiss and American zealots. That and the early happy end is seen to have been brought about mainly by several parliamentary interventions, behind-the-scene networkings, and perhaps also by the author's amicus curiae.
    Remains then the question of due compensation. Though some people may think of themselves as having a birth right or otherwise seem accustomed to free services, the law of this land is set up differently (62 & 422 CO)  Thus, the persistently unhelpful attitude of Mr.Polenski's lawyers is not seen to relieve their client of the obligation to respect the customary courtesies, not least of which would seem to be a personal acknowledgement and sign of appreciation of the efforts to prevent Mr.Polenski's extradition carried out by several Swiss lawmakers and former magistrates. The following email exchange - which is in reverse chronological order - speaks for itself. But it is incomplete and inconclusive in as much as the repeatedly sent last email of April 16 has yet to draw the courtesy of a reply:
Subject: Sine ira et studio
      Date:           Fri, 16 Apr 2010 14:02:27 +0200
      From:           "swissbit@solami.com" <swissbit@solami.com>
        To:            Lorenz Erni <lorenz.erni@ee-law.ch>
Sehr geehrter Herr Erni,
    Besten Dank für Ihre prompte Antwort - wobei es mich etwas erstaunt, dass mein Ton Sie etwas erstaunt hat. Aber lassen wir das für den Moment, denn noch ist Ihr Klient unter Hausarrest und es gilt, die stets knappen Ressourcen zur schnellstmöglichen Lösung dieses Problems einzusetzen.
    In diesem Sinne, und zur Vermeidung überlagernder Bemühungen, erwartete ich insbesondere nach unserem letzten Gespräch - und erwarte ich weiterhin - die Zusendung der i.S. Polanski erfolgten Eingaben an die hiesigen und an die amerikanischen Behörden und Gerichte. Stattdessen erhielt ich den erwähnten unbehelflichen Nasenstäuber Ihres Kollegen Hummel.
    Zu verschiedenen Fragen - z.B. bezüglich der Anwendbarkeit des allgemeinen Vorbehalts der "wesentlichen nationalen Interessen", des anwendbaren Staatsvertrags, und der doppelten Strafbarkeit - haben wir schon letztes Jahr mit mehreren hiesigen Inhabern von Strafrechts-Lehrstühlen, einem ehemaligen Rechtskonsulenten des Bundesrates, und ehemaligen und aktuellen Spezialisten der Bundesverwaltung Kontakt aufgenommen. Und mit Blick auf die auch u.E. unverhältnismässig lange Auslieferungshaft planten wir weitere politische Vorstösse - sowohl für die März- als auch für die anstehende Junisession. Dazu gedachten - und gedenken - wir einigen Rechtsfragen vertieft nachzugehen. Es versteht sich von selbst, dass es dabei zweckmässig wäre, wenn wir uns auch auf Ihre einschlägigen Untersuchungen abstützen könnten. Dies umso mehr, als Herr Polanski Ihnen dazu freie Hand gegebenen haben soll.
    Mit freundlichen Grüssen,
Anton Keller

Lorenz Erni wrote [15.4.10):
  Sehr geehrter Herr Keller
      Besten Dank für Ihre Nachricht, deren Ton mich allerdings etwas erstaunt.
      Ich habe diese Gelegenheit benutzt, um Ihren amicus curiae Brief nochmals zu lesen und stelle fest, dass er nichts enthält, was von den Anwälten nicht schon verschiedentlich eingebracht wurde. Ihre in Ihrem Mail durchschimmernde Auffassung, wonach Herr Polanski bereits frei wäre, wenn wir nur enger mit Ihnen zusammengearbeitet hätten (wie denn?) teile ich deshalb nicht. Das heisst allerdings keineswegs, dass ich die von Ihnen mitgetragenen politischen Vorstösse in dieser Sache nicht schätze.
  Vielleicht können Sie mir etwas genauer darlegen, was der Hintergrund Ihrer Nachricht ist. So wie sie mir jetzt vorliegt, hinterlässt sie in erster Linie Ratlosigkeit.
  Freundliche Grüsse
  Lorenz Erni
  Dr. Lorenz Erni
  Ankerstrasse 61   Postfach
  CH - 8026 Zürich
  Tel:  +41 44 296 88 99     Fax: +41 44 296 88 90
  lorenz.erni@ee-law.ch
  _______________________________
  -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
  Von: swissbit@solami.com [mailto:swissbit@solami.com]
  Gesendet: Donnerstag, 15. April 2010 11:39
  An: lorenz.erni@ee-law.ch
  Betreff: [Fwd: Not read: amicus curiae (Polanski v. LA Sup. Court)] (see below)
  Dear Mr. Erni,
      Your initial refusal was bad enough, when you failed to even acknowledge, much less to discuss and cooperate with us on how best, on grounds of "essential national interests" to bring the political forces of this country to effectively protect Mr.Polanski against unwarranted extradition. Despite of that, two noted parilamentary interventions took place (e.g. Motion  09.4269: www.solami.com/extraditionstop.htm), Mr.Polanski was duly informed of them, and is understood to have benefited from these extra-judicial efforts. And as explained to you over the phone recently, due to the latter, he might still benefit even more decisively if only his lawyers would not seem to stand in the way and act as if they had a monopoly for good ideas.
      As explained to Mr.Polanski, a separate legal argument might then - and might still - have been developed due to the refusal of the California Court's clerk to transmit to The Honorable Judge Peter Espinoza our amicus curiae of January 19 (.../polanskiac.htm; she not only claimed not to know what an amicus curiae brief was but also appeared ignorant on the related procedures and invoked my lack of either professional or specific standing in this case).
      And now, to top it all, I find your U.S. colleague and lead Polanski lawyer Chad Hummel to have even failed to open my mail copy of Jan 19 to him, not to speak of his failure to return my repeated telephone calls to him.
      Verily, under these circumstances, we appreciate our administration's about-turn to have been helped by our political pressures, but we are not really surprised that Mr.Polanski has found himself so long under house arrest.
  Sincerely yours,
  Anton Keller, Secretary
  Swiss Investors Protection Association
  cp 2580, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
  t+f: +4122-7400362    +4179-6047707    swissbit@solami.com
cc: Mr.Roman Polanski, Gstaad

²⁾    Since October 2009, the author tried several times to speak with Mr Polanski's first French lawyer with a view to secure his cooperation in order to bring about Mr.Polanski's earliest possible release from extradition detention primarily on the political track by way of corresponding legislative researches and parliamentary interventions. The messages thus left with Maître Temime's cabinet have yet to draw the courtesy of a return call.

³⁾    Initially, in December 2010, Mr. Dalton was quite appreciative of the caller's news about the two lawmaker interventions in the Swiss parliament in favor of Mr.Polanski. And with regard to the suggestions for corresponding coordinated follow-up measures aiming to prevent Mr.Polanski's extradition to the US, he promised to study the matter and call back. Apparently, he lost the author's coordinates.

⁴⁾    Mr. Polanski's local lead lawyer, Mr. Chad Hummel, requested to be taken off this list - 12 minutes after reception of our email, i.e. in less time than it takes to fully read this memo. He was also early on alerted by phone of the efforts being deployed on the Swiss political track in favor of his client. Initially - and contrary to Maître Erni's response - he also indicated interest to cooperate and coordinate to that end, and promised to come back. Apparently, he too lost the author's coordinates. And when, with email of January 19, he received a registered copy of the author's amicus curiae filing to the court in Los Angeles, he or an assistant of his must have hit the wrong button, for the return email dated April 13 read:
Your message
  To:      emilybeaghan@gmail.com; AParachini@LASuperiorCourt.org
  Cc:      sandi@da.lacounty.gov; Hummel, Chad;
bartdalton@daltonlawyers.com; CCMS@jud.ca.gov
  Subject: amicus curiae (Polanski v. LA Sup. Court)
  Sent:    Tue, 19 Jan 2010 16:02:12 -0700
was deleted without being read on Mon, 12 Apr 2010 19:16:50

⁵⁾    Mr. Weingarten - "a well-known Washington power player and close friend and associate of Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.", according to the New York Times (Powerful Player Joins Polanski Team, NYT, Michael Cieply et al.) - received by email on Jan.20, 2010, a copy of the author's amicus curiae. In a subsequent call a few days later, he confirmed to have received this document but refused to discuss any matter related to the Polanski case, advising the caller to contact Mr. Polanski's "American lead lawyer" Chad Hummel in Los Angeles.

⁶⁾    On May 25, Maître Georges Kiejman, Mr.Polanski's second French lawyer, was addressed with the following email under the subject line Polanski plea bargaining, extradition request, statute of limitation
Dear Mr.Kiejman,
    I greatly appreciated your principled and persistant intervention during last week's TSR Infrarouge debate on Mr. Polanski's struggle to prevent his extradition to the US.
    As our own political campaign in his favor (www.solami.com/extraditionstop.htm) has been carried out mostly in German - excepting our amicus curiae of Jan.19 - we take this opportunity to appraise you of some [related facts]. Regrettably, some of his lawyers have repeatedly declined our offer to cooperate and coordinate related efforts, with some reportedly having even belittled & denigrated what we're doing vis-à-vis Mr.Polanski. For the time being, I do not want to destabilise Mr.Polanski any further by clearing up this fog with him. But it would be seen helpful to his cause if some artificial obstacles thus created were removed or sidelined on alternative roads. In this sense, I'd appreciate your seeking his authorization - he gave it already to Mr.Erni [the second time in my presence when I visited him in Gstaad in March], essentially to no avail - to discuss matters with me and to transmit me notably the official extradition request of October 23, 2009 as well as such details of the 1977 plea bargaining which you feel might be helpful in our work with Swiss lawmakers. E.g. whether or not the DA at that time, Roger Gunson, classified Polanski's act under the then-valid version of section 261.5 ("unlawful sexual intercourse") as a misdemeanor, punishable by up to 1 year in county jail, or a felony, punishable by up to 50 years in state prison (see also the extracts of the Superior Court decision of 12/21/09)
    Thanking you in advance for your prompt consideration of the above, I remain, cordialement
Anton Keller, conseiller parlementaire
004127-2812477    004179-6047707
note: tellingly, the courtesy of a reply is in this case, too still outstanding
 
 
 
 
 

Mr. Roman Polanski
Alpenblickstrasse
3780 Gstaad
c/o Bernard-Henri Lévy, Paris

Dear Mr. Polanski,

On 28th August 2010, your release from house arrest and non-extradition to the United States was celebrated by some of your Swiss friends who - against great odds - had labored towards that happy end of the most notorious case of a wildgrown extradition practice. Regrettably, you didn't manage to attend this gathering above the clouds in the Swiss Alps to which you were, of course, invited directly and by way of your lawyers and some artist friends of yours. Tellingly, that was in line with the way some of your lawyers had chosen to handle your case and which is seen to have contributed to your needlessly prolonged forced stay in traditionally hospitable Switzerland.

Wishing not to destabilize you additionally with such unpleasant critics, I brought you only my testimony of continued support when I visited you in Gstaad last March. And I assured you of the beneficial aims and effects of the dominently political efforts I have been privileged to conduct on your behalf with the assistance of over 70 Swiss personalities (www.solami.com/polanskirecord.htm#Abstract). I was satisfied to see you reassured, grateful and willing to cooperate - as I found you when I first appraised you last December of the initial two - out of a total of eight - parliamentary interventions in your favor. And your corresponding on-the-spot instruction to your lawyer produced indeed a call from him - figleaf-wide that is. For it turned out that he essentially persisted in his non-cooperative, factually denigrating and even obstructing attitude towards those efforts which - in light of the established practice of the Federal Department of Justice and Police EJPD and the resultant automatic pilot towards extradition which characterised your case until April - proved to be determinant for resolving your misfortune. Unfortunately, this attitude perists even til now, as you can also see from the fact that my email to him of April 16 (.../polanskirecord.htm#studio) has not been answered either even after the nightmare was lifted.

Perhaps then it is time that you be further appraised and enabled to take the full measure of the behind-the-scene forces that brought about that fundamental turnaround at the highest level of the Swiss Government. Those having publicly and/or privately weighed in, and in one way or another been involved in this complex operation include: retired Federal Councillors (4), former president of the Swiss Supreme Court (1), former governmental juris consults (3) active or retired law professors (11) and lawmakers (22). To be sure, most of them have apporté leur pierre à l'édifice on a pro bono basis. However, at my request, some have rendered professional services for which I have assumed over-all responsibility for all related investments in political and monetary capital. Accordingly, I find myself compelled to submit to you a simple question for prompt reply: Is your appreciation for the above outlined work and results truly commensurate with Swiss and - presumably - your own best traditions which provide for a beneficiary's explicit and specific expression of gratitude also in the form of full and prompt compensation without further démarches?

Meanwhile, I remain with best wishes for your health and your family, and with Season's Greetings

Anton Keller