Email # 7
From: "Helje Kaskel" ela_estonia@yahoo.se
To: "SCPLEX" lex@schmilletlombrez.com
Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 18:46:56 +0200 (CEST)
Re: Estonia case: How should we go on?
Dear Mr. Schmill,
Thank you for your response of June 13th concerning various issues. I will summarize our thinking on each issue and hope for further clarification from you.
1. The June 6th hearing: We would appreciate receiving a summary of the hearing, the positions argued by all parties, and the results of the hearing which you said were delivered on the 13th.
2. The June 21st hearing: We would appreciate receiving a summary of the purpose of the hearing, the position which you intend to take on behalf of the plaintiffs, and a report afterwards of what took place.
These two matters, if properly prepared and transmitted to us, would be extremely useful for my communication with the members of ELA. This would show that there is some action being taken on our behalf.
3. Past fees and expenses: We have been waiting since January 2004 for your presentation of this material. Carefully documented time and expenses will be very helpful in determining the money we need to try to raise. We are not sure what you meant when you referred to your "last invoice."
4. 100,000 Euros: It was and is our understanding that this amount was raised for the purpose of prosecuting this case. If this money has not come to you, that should be an important and primary target for all of us to accomplish. It is unacceptable that there has been no proper accounting for this significant amount of money. If you have not received these funds, we are concerned that we join you in every way possible to insure that you receive them. Likewise we believe this should require a serious effort on your part as well, of which we would expect a full report.
5. The client agreement: We still believe that it is important that there be an attorney/client agreement so as to avoid possible misunderstandings. Thus far, there has been far too little communication, too much done in the dark, and too many misunderstandings between all the parties. Such a poor relationship only benefits the opposition and reduces the chances of a successful outcome.
We look forward to your prompt response. Thank you very much.
Sincerely,
Helje Kaskel
Chairman of ELA
Email # 6
From: "SCPLEX" lex@schmilletlombrez.com
To: "Helje Kaskel" ela_estonia@yahoo.se
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2005 17:13:28 +0200
Re: Estonia Case: How should we go on?
Regarding the hearing on June 6th, please be advised that matter has be pleaded by the parties on the question on whether first proceedings should go on.
Decision is to be rendered on today. We shall not fail to keep you informed accordingly.
Regarding next hearing it is due to place on the 21st June in Nanterre at 09.30 at the Tribunal de Grande instance in Nanterre, salle 2-89
Turning now onto the subject of financing of costs and fees, we confirm that we are preparing up to date invoice for costs and fees incurred since our last invoice.
Please be informed that the question of the 100.000 euros due by Witte to our firm refers to past agreement and costs and fees incurred. This could not solve the problem of future financing. You may as victims further inquire in this situation, but my intention in this matter is not to pursue personal dispute against anyone until matter on the merits as been resolved. My statement on this amount is mostly to state that neither nor past financing is resolved at this stage.
It remains that the issue will have to be addressed within the very next future, to avoid any misunderstandings especially since the court and counterparts get involved in the process.
We shall come back with invoices and shall await your counter- proposals.
Best regards,
Erik SCHMILL
Email # 5
From: "Helje Kaskel" ela_estonia@yahoo.se
To: "SCPLEX" lex@schmilletlombrez.com
Friday, June 03, 2005 2:44 AM
Re: Estonia case: How should we go on?
Dear Mr. Schmill,
I appreciate your prompt answer.
As you have mentioned before, Witte appears to have absconded with the plaintiffs’ funds. Unfortunately he has not responded to my letters requesting a written itemized accounting either.
I take the missing 100,000 Euros very seriously. If you, as a lawyer, are unable to get the 100,000 Euros Witte owes you, then how could you expect us to do any better. I do not think it is wise to speculate that Witte may not have that money or has spent it. Björn Hygstedt of Svenska Dagbladet has found in his research that Witte has taken the money meant for the case to the tax haven of the Isle of Man. To enable him to get away with it makes no sense. It borders on collusion.
You say: "... since this money has not reached us it is not available for costs of these proceedings." In fact, can you tell me exactly what legal steps you have taken to get this money? I really do not know what the arrangements between you and Witte were like, but in this country Witte could be disbarred. Also there is the possibility of his "Malpractice insurance", but you probably wouldn't be able to go after that until AFTER you have made an appropriate and real effort to get the 100,000 Euros given to Witte to be used by you as your payment to cover your fees and costs of running the Estonia case for ELA.
Incidently, if our case is good, there should be a lot of potential money available. In this situation you are the best judge and should be the last person to want to drop it. In this country (USA), a wrongful death verdict would get the families way more than $100,000 each. You have told me that things are different in Europe but even at as small a figure as $25,000 times 108 (or more) times 20% would mean $500,000 for you. That should be plenty of incentive if you are sure you will be the winner.
You say: "Furthermore, we believe that it is incorrect to state we do not give "the slightest indication on the process or the program" in this matter. We expect organization like ISG (DIS) or ELA to do this type of job on the basis of the information which is available to us." My question may sound rhetoric but how do you expect ELA and ISG to communicate "the information which is available to us" to the plaintiffs when you do not communicate "the information which is available to us" to ELA and ISG? Besides, to the best of my knowledge, ISG has ceased to exist. Will you please clarify this matter with Gunnar Bendréus, the chairman of ISG, who has given you his power-of-attorney and whose phone number you should have in your files. It really confuses the communications between us if you keep referring to the name of a group that is now defunct.
You say: "It is for us difficult to understand how we could be supposed to answer everybody's questions on every kind of subject for the past ten years, and when we raise the issue of costs and fees, the only answer we receive is a recommendation to talk to somebody else." You will surely get your answer on "the issue of costs and fees" after you tell us what costs and fees are supposedly owed to you by the plaintiffs to date and after there is an attorney-client fee agreement in effect with you. It is probably in everyone’s best interest, including yours, for you and me to cooperate on this case, and particularly to recover contributions already made for the purpose of prosecuting this case.
These were my 20 questions and 99 requests for today.
I will approach the proposals to finance the case next week as I hope you understand the complexity of this issue.
Warm regards,
Helje Kaskel
Chairman of ELA
Email # 4
From: "SCPLEX" lex@schmilletlombrez.com
To: "Helje Kaskel" ela_estonia@yahoo.se
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 20:02:16 +0200
Re: Subject matter of the May 30, 2005 hearing
Please be advised that Witte owes us approx an amount of 100.000 Euros which he has recovered from the insurance companies and not paid to us, for reasons unknown to us, possibly because he had already spent the money, and therefore did not have it anymore. We have spent considerable amount of time and money to have the matter solved with the insurance companies without success.
It remains that since this money has not reached us it is not available for costs of these proceedings.
As mentioned previously we cannot finance costs out of our own pocket, and therefore we have put forward a proposal which would allow us to continue. We then cannot be accused to refuse to clarify financial status of this case.
It is clear that if there is no solution there is a real risk that the case will end in the near future without any possibility of reviving it. We then would be the first victims of this situation since all efforts in this case have been made by this firm and apparently without any kind of reward of any sort, even not respect.
It is for us difficult to understand how we could be supposed to answer everybody's questions on every kind of subject for the past ten years, and when we raise the issue of costs and fees, the only answer we receive is a recommendation to talk to somebody else. Furthermore, we believe that it is incorrect to state we do not give "the slightest indication on the process or the program" in this matter. We expect organization like ISG or ELA to do this type of job on the basis of the information which is available to us.
I suppose that the judge did not provide any answers to any of your questions either, which does not by itself make her a good or a bad judge...
Regarding the case, please be advised that the hearing on June 6 goes around procedural matters to decide in view of the Cour de Cassation case, on whether the first proceedings should be stopped or not. As we were not in a financial position to attend the case before the Cour de Cassation, we can only have very little impact. It may appear at a later stage as an important step, however, it is difficult to assess prospects or define strategy without a penny for doing it.
Regarding the hearing on June 21st, the court will try to establish a calendar for proceedings which could lead parties to a full pleading. The position which we shall adopt is clearly a position which will allow us to save a much costs as possible, whereas opponents will use their best endeavors to make sure that we spend as much money as possible since it is now clear to them that we have no finance to back us in this case. The strategy will be the largest motivation of parties concerned. If we are in the situation with financial pressure on our part, we shall probably more about it at the outcome of this hearing, and we shall report as we do every time anything important happens in this case, and we shall then know by then the deadline for finding financial solutions to this case. We are looking forward to hearing from you with regards to the financial proposal put forward in our previous mail.
Best regards,
Erik Schmill
Email # 3
From: "Helje Kaskel" ela_estonia@yahoo.se
To: SCPLEX lex@schmilletlombrez.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:31 AM
Re: Subject matter of the May 30, 2005 hearing
Dear Mr. Schmill,
Thank you for your letter. AT LAST you have responded to my many attempts to communicate with you from my position as the leader of ELA. I hope this is the beginning of a more communicative effort with regards this case. I had repeatedly sought information from you without success. Hence the urgent need to contact the Judge.
Since the contact therewith related only to our representation rather than to the case matter, the opposition should not be able to use it to your or our disadvantage in the future, contrary to your suggestion.
Regarding fees, it was my understanding that Mr. Witte had received more than ample fees to initiate this case and that these fees would be used by you in bringing the matter before the court in Nanterre. We have no problem with your proposed 20% of sums recovered.
As you know the group of 1200 members are wide spread and not wealthy. It is not easy to collect either powers of attorney nor funds from same when they have absolutely no idea of WHO you are or WHAT you are going to do for them. To them, the idea of putting over 50,000 Euros in your hands without the slightest indication of the process or the program is a very difficult sale. The fees Witte received which should have come to you should be more than ample to cover your "out of pocket" costs. Have you obtained these fees from Witte, and if so, how much, and if not, why not? We will look forward to seeing your proposed invoices, as you suggest. I'm sure this information will be helpful to us in determining how our future relationship needs to be organized.
You mention the court hearing on June 6th. Is this important or merely to set aside a previous effort? Regarding the meeting on the 21st, could you please elaborate what decisions will be involved. I will look forward to receiving your response.
Sincerely,
Helje Kaskel
Chairman of ELA
Email # 2
From: "SCPLEX" lex@schmilletlombrez.com
To: "Helje Kaskel" ela_estonia@yahoo.se
Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 12:07:52 +0200
Re: Subject matter of the May 30, 2005 hearing
Dear Helje,
Please be advised that we have attended court hearing yesterday, and we would wish to comment as follows:
We were very surprised to hear from the judge that you have written to her directly, and the judge got very upset about this line of action.
Notwithstanding the fact that now our opponent lawyers are now fully aware of the various difficulties we encounter on this side, on which they will not fail to build argumentation before the court, we believe that you are quiet right in your intention to clarify matters.
We note that at this date we have received 108 powers of attorney. We doubt whether we shall receive many more of them.
We would be grateful if you can provide us with a deadline for remittance of powers of attorney. After that date, we can only reserve the rights of our firm to continue to act on behalf of victims which have not sent the relevant documentation.
Furthermore, you mention in your letter that we has refused to "negotiate and agree a basic contract to clarify legal fees...".
We can only draw your attention on the fact that since the beginning of this case we are out of pocket in this file, and that we are described as the "bad boys", whereas nobody is paying us a penny for the work done and costs incurred.
Regarding future costs and fees, we suggest that on the basis of 108 claimants, we may ask for payment of 500 Euros per claimant and a contract similar to the one we have signed with ISG(DIS) allowing us to collect 20 % of all amounts to be recovered.
We are looking forward to hearing from you and other victims relatives regarding this proposal.
We shall in the meantime prepare invoices to allow every one to see exactly where we stand in terms of costs and fees to date.
Regarding the case please be advised that we are prepared to have the matter heard on the merits at any time , which we mention to the court again yesterday.
The court has requested us to produce the information about the financial situation of the victims and their relatives, as well as family relations between the victims and their relatives. We hold some information but very incomplete.
On Monday June 6th the court will hear the parties regarding the issue on whether the first proceedings shall be discontinued or not.
On the June 21st the parties will be heard in relation of the second proceedings in view of establishment of procedural calendar.
We would welcome your comments rather than receiving them through the judge.
We are looking forward to hearing from you,
Best regards,
Erik Schmill
Email # 1
From: "Helje Kaskel" ela_estonia@yahoo.se
To: "SCPLEX" lex@schmilletlombrez.com
Cc: Thomas Molins
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2005 9:54 PM
Re: Subject matter of the May 30, 2005 hearing
Mr. Schmill,
Will you tell us what will the subject matter of the upcoming hearing be? Would you also provide us with the time of the hearing, the courtroom in which the hearing will be held and the case number of our case that will be heard in the Court of Nanterre on May 30, 2005. Thank you.
I hope that you can find time and give us this essential information.
In the name of your clients,
Helje Kaskel,
Chairman of ELA | 
Korrespondensen mellan E. Schmill och H. Kaskel
