"Du warst auch der Ansicht, dass wir jetzt aktiv werden müssen, um den Prozess nicht zu verlieren." (You were of an opinion, that we should now become active again, in order not to lose the case.)
H. Witte to E. Schmill in a fax dated on Dec. 11, 2003.
OPEN LETTER TO HENNING WITTE
Dr. Henning Witte
Villagatan 13-B
114 32 Stockholm
Sweden
Dresden, February 25, 2004
Re: ESTONIA LITIGATION IN PARIS
Dr. Witte:
Important developments in the Estonia lawsuit in Paris, known as the Paris process, compel me to write this open letter: first, that the case became reactivated on Nov. 24, 2003 and secondly, your unexpected resignation as ELA's legal representative.
As chairman of ELA, I have many questions about why the Paris process has shown so little progress in 8 years. Because you, as legal representative of ELA, have not answered my e-mails and letters about this matter, I am sending you this open letter, which summarizes my concerns.
YOUR DEMANDS
You claimed that if the 770 litigation members who lack the preferred insurance coverage did not leave the litigation by the next date in court, the process will come crashing down, i.e. the judge would "kill" the case. As a matter of fact, the judge does not care how many litigation members there are nor would she dismiss the case for such a reason. The new judge in Paris whose name you could not provide, was more concerned of the "two years of inactivity in the case" that she could not accept. Schmill and Lombrez complained of the lack of instruction from the relatives whom you represent. Whose fault is that?
On ELA's Dec. 18, 2003 board meeting, when I asked about the total contingency fee for two lawyers, you answered that it was 20%. But in your letter to Schmill, written just 8 days earlier, you said that each lawyer should receive 20 percent. Later, you demanded that ELA honor the previous deal reached with DIS according to what you and Schmill each be guaranteed a contingency fee of 20 percent. However, you have never provided any written documents about this matter neither were any DIS members aware of such a deal.
To try to divide the relatives between those whose money has been spent and those who still can be "milked" because they are covered by insurance is unethical. The ELA board decided unanimously on its board meeting on Dec 18, 2003 that NO members should be let down and that it would be a betrayal to let it happen. All the members of the litigation should be treated equally by the lawyers.
You did not take our "no" for an answer and pressed for another emergency meeting right after New Year on Jan 7-8, 2004. It was called on your initiative through Elisabeth Nilsson, ELA's vice chairman, on extremely short notice of three days. You planned to hold that 2-day meeting in your office in Stockholm with a sleepover in your country house in Rejmyre.
When I was told about this arrangement by e-mail I questioned the need for another meeting since we had just met two weeks earlier. I protested that the location was not neutral. You had planned to use the meeting at your house to persuade the board members to agree to your demands without me being present. As guests in your house it would have been more difficult for the board members to oppose your proposals.
You and Elisabet had planned everything before asking me whether I could even attend. In my hour-long telephone conversation with you to your mobile phone from Estonia, you claimed that the Dec. 18 meeting had been "preparation" for the question of the fate of the 770 uninsured litigation members, contingency fees, and such.
Before taking another flight to Sweden, I was able to convince you to postpone the meeting date from Jan 7-8 to Jan 11. I succeeded to change the location of the meeting to a more neutral place in Gränna, Sweden. I took the extra measures to invite witnesses and record the meeting, although this tape is now being held by E. Nilsson.
QUESTIONS
Since I have not received answers to my previous questions, I remind you of the important issues again:
- What have you done to forward the case in Paris since ELA was founded on 10 June 2002? Why didn't you inform Schmill about ELA?
- How many hours, on which days, did you work for ELA? What did you accomplish? What were your fees?
- How many hours, and on which days, did you work gratis for ELA as its supporting member? How much money of your own have you spent?
- How much money have you personally received from the insurance companies? For what and how much do the insurance companies still owe you? What have you accomplished?
- For what reason do you still owe Eric Schmill 100.000 euros, some of which you have already received from the insurance companies?
- How many hours did you work for DIS and how much were you compensated for it: 1) by DIS, 2) by insurance companies?
- Why did you give ELA board members wrong information about the court date in January 2004 by replacing the Jan. 12 date with Jan. 22?
1.6 MILLION + 1.7 MILLION SEK
You were reluctant to tell ELA board exactly what happened to the original litigation funds collected by DIS, totaling some 1.636 million SEK in1996. All you said, when I asked about the money, was that you lived on it ("Jag levde på det"). In addition, as Svenska Dagbladet reported on Feb. 27, 1999, you collected 1.7 million SEK from the insurance companies, of which Schmill claims 100.000 Euros is still owed to him. The same report said you thought it justified to charge insurance companies 300.000 SEK simply for talking to the media. It also reported that you asked the insurance companies to pay 49,000 SEK to cover the interest on your personal loan of 350,000 SEK, something you said you had to take because the insurance companies withheld your payments. All this money was meant to come out of the Paris process funds. Small wonder that the insurance companies froze you out in 1999.
Since the shortage of funds has once again surfaced as a major problem in the process, it was quite logical that the question of 1.6 million was asked. There are many others who also wonder where the money went.
This is obviously a painful question for you. Why else blame me for being too money-oriented ("penningfixerad") by daring to pose such a question at the Dec. 18 meeting. You complained about it even during the next meeting on Jan. 11, 2004. You made a big issue out of the fact that I had contacted Jönköpings Posten. A local reporter called me before the meeting whom I told about the serious problems the litigation members were facing, including your remarkably frank answer about the unaccounted Paris process funds. The reporter then called you, which you said had ruined everything and made you resign. You may be interested to know that I also contacted Svenska Dagbladet, Dagens Nyheter, Aftonbladet, Swedish Lawyers Association and Mona Sahlin's office. The fate of 82% of litigation members and their blood money was definitely not for you to decide.
On recommendation of the Estonian relatives, I brought witnesses to the next meeting. The editor of the DSM magazine, Jan Gillberg, and the American journalist Chris Bollyn, experts on the Estonia catastrophe and sponsors of ELA, agreed to monitor the meeting. You disliked their presence so much that you refused to discuss any of the burning issues that you were expected to deliver. That was, after all, the reason you called for the "emergency" meeting on Jan 11, 2004.
WITHHOLDING DOCUMENTS
It is amazing that you have withheld important documents from me, the chairman of the organization you were supposed to represent. It is irresponsible and suggests you have something to hide. Why was it that only E. Nilsson was involved in your inflated invoice regarding the founding of ELA? As you know, ELA lacks funds and cannot afford such expenses.
She alone attested to the substantial sum of 163,055 SEK (for April 2002-September 2002) on Sept 3, 2002 without question. ELA rules, which you helped draft, permit either Elisabet or I to sign such documents, but require that the other is informed in writing. Nilsson failed to inform me of this huge invoice, a clear violation of organization rules.
You claim to have worked 85 hours, partly during your summer vacation, in setting up ELA. However, no ELA board member, apart from Elisabet Nilsson, knew anything of your efforts.
You claim to have made three trips to Gränna, although only one (June 10, 2002) actually involved ELA business. In April-May 2002 you sent drafts of two letters, which I translated into English and Estonian and sent the relatives, and a membership form that granted you the power of attorney. Some insurance companies, however, deemed that form to be unacceptable.
The ELA mailings were paid for by relatives: Ursula Schuhmacher (foreign letters), Elisabet Nilsson, who had help from the Department of Psychological Defense in sending out letters in Sweden, and me, who arranged the letters in Estonia. I personally assisted and paid postage for most of the mailing of your correspondence to 1200 litigation members while Jutta Rabe helped with copying and provided some envelopes.
Essential help and expenses in setting up ELA were provided and paid by Jan Gillberg.
Your business associate Jutta Rabe was upset with you during the summer of 2002 when she depended on your legal advice. On several occasions she complained that it had been hard to contact you. Jan Gillberg also said he had difficulties reaching you.
How the relatives, with whom you say you were in contact with, should have been able to reach you is anybody's guess. What did you do during the 85 hours you charged for setting up ELA (at 1,850 SEK per hour) when most of the work was done by others on a voluntary basis?
RESERVATION
Regarding the so-called Reservation dated 14 January 2004 concerning ELA's meeting of Jan. 11, 2004. In your last message you said this reservation excuses you from providing the itemized accounting as requested by the ELA board at the meetings of Dec. 18, 2003 and Jan. 11, 2004.
As I have said before, this reservation is not valid because it was composed after the meeting had been adjourned. How can it be that four-out-of-five board members are silent and have no reservations when important issues are discussed during a board meeting but file a reservation three days later? "Whose idea was that?" I might ask.
That you are avoiding providing the required accounting by using this invalid document suggests that you are the author of the Reservation and have used ELA's vice chairman, Elisabet Nilsson, to deliver it.
Unfortunately, you have not responded to my questions regarding this matter.
Post facto reservations lack validity and are meaningless. As a lawyer you should know this. What would be the point of having a meeting if it were possible to reverse the conclusions reached during the meeting by a reservation?
REPUTATION
To provide your client with the required itemized accounting is a part of every lawyer's work and should be provided without any delay. Is this particular part of your job something that you do not like very much?
According to the Swedish Lawyers Association, you were penalized 25,000 SEK in April 30, 2003 for failing your duties as a lawyer to provide the required accounting in a liquidation case.
Lawyers depend on their reputation, which you claim to have been very worried about. As a matter of fact, you said it was to preserve your reputation that you resigned as legal representative of 944 litigation members in December 1998. Furthermore, is it not the case that DIS withdrew your mandate in the first place, as your correspondence with the insurance companies clearly indicates?
I assume that you still care about your reputation as a lawyer and advise you to provide ELA with the itemized accounting specified in my letter dated on Jan 17, 2004.
INSURANCE COMPANIES
First of all, it would seem prudent for a lawyer to check with the insurance companies to determine if they are willing to cover the lawyer's fees for setting up a relatives' group.
The Swedish insurance companies were, indeed, quite clear from the beginning that they were not willing to pay your requested 163.055 SEK because they simply do not cover such expenses. Why then did you pursue this matter for an entire year and do nothing for the Paris process?
Rather than searching for alternatives to reactivate the Paris process, you created yet another obstacle by suing them in April 2003. You received a negative answer from the Stockholm court in Sept. 22, 2003 although you told ELA that the decision could take several years.
You wrote on following day, Sept. 23, 2003, that ELA members should be prepared to wait another couple of years before the final verdict would be reached in this matter. Did you intend for this dispute with the insurance companies to delay the Paris process for another several years?
Shortly afterwards, Svenska Dagbladet reported (Oct. 12, 2003) that time is running out for the Paris process, and that if, by September 2005, the case were not reactivated, it would be dismissed.
I was alarmed when I read this and asked you for an explanation and copies of your correspondence regarding ELA, which you had failed to provide. Until then, in spite of the difficulties, I thought things were in control. Finally, after several requests, you delivered the documents during the Osby meeting.
ELISABET NILSSON
I would like to point out some irregularities regarding your working relationship with Elisabet Nilsson.
You kept the ELA paperwork between you and Elisabet Nilsson without discussing it with me, chairman of ELA, or with the rest of the board members. For some reason, the whole group was kept in dark ever since it was formed on June 10, 2002. We had no overview of your involvement, or actions taken by you, in the name of ELA except for some casual remarks given over the phone. Your claim that I had no interest in ELA business is rubbish.
ELA board members were in no position, due to the lack of information, to analyze your progress or lack of it, to ask any questions, before Dec. 18, 2003, when you finally provided some of your correspondence with the insurance companies, the Swedish courts, and one lonesome fax to Erik Schmill. I am surprised that E. Nilsson did not question your long delays in answering the letters from the insurance companies and the court. You two ran ELA like a private club.
Furthermore, E. Nilsson tried to pass off an "emergency" ELA board meeting, held on Dec. 18, 2003 at her house in Osby, Sweden, as the organization's yearly meeting. After I left, you and the remaining three board members drafted a letter to kick Schmill out of the case in Paris. To this day, I have not received a copy of it.
In an earlier letter to ELA members dated on 17 April 2002, Nilsson had even forged my signature.
Today, for some unknown reason, Elisabeth Nilsson, who has resigned from her position on the board, has in her possession the audiotape of the most recent board meeting. She acquired it from ELA secretary Helene Lundholm on the pretext of helping her to write the protocol, which has not materialized to this day.
By withholding the tape, she is obstructing Markus Nilsson (her son) and me to adjust the protocol and apply the decisions reached by the board. It would seem that E. Nilsson is doing a favor for you since you claim in your e-mail that you won't provide any accounting before you have seen the protocol. It is quite clear that you two work hand-in-hand. While E. Nilsson's dishonest behavior is clearly in conflict with ELA's interests, it seems to suit you just fine. At the same time, you portray my actions, which are based on the decisions of the board members, as a personal whim.
NEGATIVE INFLUENCE ON ELA
After you resigned as the legal representative of ELA on Jan 11, 2004, it is improper for you to continue meddling and interfering in ELA affairs or contacting members of the board regarding ELA activity. It looks to me as if you have intended to hijack the group by dividing it, setting the Swedish members of the board against me, the only non-insured Estonian member of the board.
As I discovered last month, your working relationship with Erik Schmill has been "non-existent." You blame him of being inactive and money-oriented while it is actually you who owe him. There are significant sums you have received from the insurance companies but failed to forward to him. You accuse him of being a Mossad agent and recommend that we replace him with another lawyer. However, according to French law, Schmill cannot be replaced unless the old debts, including the ones owed by you, have been paid off completely.
The work of ELA's board has turned out to be totally dysfunctional and it is largely because of you. Is this intentional or is it incompetence? Rather than providing the necessary legal help, you simply advised ELA to wait.
FUNDS & PURPOSE OF ELA
You blame me personally that I have not raised money for ELA. Well, ELA is not a fundraising operation. People still have bitter memories about the first collected funds of 1.6 million SEK that you do not want to talk about. You took my $300 that was required to pay to be part of the litigation and never reported it to DIS.
As you very well know, ELA's purpose is to ease the communication difficulties between the 944 litigation members and the lawyers involved; to provide the huge group of people with a much-needed structure and look out for the interest of the litigation members.
Why have you never used ELA as a vehicle to push the process in Paris? You still claim that insurance companies should pay you 163.055 SEK for setting up ELA, since the case is pending in Svea Hovrätt. You certainly have let us and the insurance companies know that ELA and the relatives owe you a living, even if the essence of the process in Paris has yet to be heard in court after almost 8 years.
You sent Schmill a fax on Dec. 11, 2003 where you said: "Du warst auch der Ansicht, dass wir jetzt aktiv werden müssen, um den Prozess nicht zu verlieren." (You were of an opinion, that we should now become active again, in order not to lose the case.)
My question is: "Who asked you to be inactive in such an huge case?"
Stalling it, is exactly what those parties, who have most to lose, want.
It is juvenile to accuse E. Schmill of inactivity and greed, to blame the judges and insurance companies, the relatives who lost the Estonia case in Stockholm, and me - for wrecking the Paris process. You have always put the blame on someone else. 1200 litigation members have been very patient. We deserve to be honestly represented and for our case to be heard. Unfortunately, we have been unlucky. We trusted you to speak for us, but you have not even let Erik Schmill know about ELA, the only organization formed to hasten the case.
Although you resigned as ELA's legal representative, you still owe us explanations and accounting. Since you have not answered to our questions, I am compelled to write this open letter.
I have an obligation to inform 352 ELA members, whose mandates I helped you to get, about the obstacles that have prevented the Paris process from moving ahead.
Regards,
Helje Kaskel,
Chairman of ELA
Note: Henning Witte has not responded to this letter as of May 28, 2005 except with personal slander against the author of this letter.
Helje Kaskel skriver till MUST, Militära underrättelse och säkerhetstjänsten pga Henning Wittes ogrundade personangrepp mot ELAs ordförande.
http://www.elaestonia.org/eng/index.php?module=lingid&link=169
Mer om Henning Witte:
1999.02.28 Estoniajurist i skalbolagshärva
http://www.elaestonia.org/swe/index.php?module=lingid&link=154
1999.02.27 Längtan efter visshet blev juridisk tragedi
http://www.elaestonia.org/swe/index.php?module=lingid&link=155
Estoniajurist anmäld för ärekränkning
http://www.elaestonia.org/swe/index.php?module=lingid&link=171
| 
den 25. februari 2004 - Öppet brev till H. Witte
