Sonntag, 6. März 2005 17:05
TVG - US Claim
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!
On Friday 4.3.2005 in New York our claim was filed. The press received immediately information after filing the lawsuit. If anyone from the press contacts you direct and you do not want to be contacted, than just give me information about this and inform the press, that they shall call us (Dr Gerhard Podovsovnik 0043 664 110 34 04 and Dr Herwig Hasslacher 0043 664 243 04 05). If you have any question to the case the filing or the further procedure please do not hesitate and contact us via e-mail: rechtsanwalt@podovsovnik.com or kanzlei@hh-law.at
Kind regards
Dr Gerhard Podovsovnik, eh
Dr Herwig Hasslacher, cc
ED FAGAN ET AL. CIVIL ACTION (PETITION & CLAIM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
------------------------------
TSUNAMI VICTIMS GROUP;
ANNA BAJEK;
BARTHOLOMÄUS BAJEK;
JOHANN BAY;
KERN BIBIANE;
MANUELA BRANDENSTEIN;
CHRISTOPHE BURTIN;
JERZY CHOJNOWSKI;
KONRAD CHOJNOWSKI;
BERND EDUARD DRECHSEL;
DR. PETER FERGER;
HANS PETER FERGER;
CHRISTEL FERGER;
MONIKA FEUERSTEIN;
MAGDALENA FRANEK;
ELFRIEDE GAULHOFER;
FRANZ GAULHOFER;
LAURENT GUILLAUME;
URSULA KARLIK;
ANITA KIRISITS;
WALTER KIRISITS;
HERTWIG KLAUS;
DR. CHRISTIAN KOBAU;
DR. IRENE KOBAU;
LOTTE KOBAU;
NAMOANI KOBAU;
PETER KOBAU;
ALEXANDER KRAMMER;
LIDIA KRUFFCZYK;
SILVIA KULB-HOHNER;
HEIKE LANGE;
LARRY LAZAR;
ANDREA LEGER;
FREIDA MATHIS;
KERSTIN MATHIS;
MARKUS MATHIS;
MICHAEL R. MATHIS;
THOMAS MATHIS;
GURDRUN MATTHIES;
WALTRAUD MITTERMAIER;
JUDIT MOHOLA;
LEOPOLD MRACSNA
MARIO NINAUS;
LUIGI PROMENZIO;
OLIVIA PROMENZIO;
SUSANNE PROMENZIO;
VICO PROMENZIO;
DR. ALFRED RIESSER;
DR. WALTRAUD RIESSER;
MAG. KIRISTS ROMAN;
SAMI ROMANI;
ANNY SADOVNIK;
ANGELIKA SCHUHBECK-ALVES;
HELMUT SCHWEIKER;
SCOTT THERESIA;
CSCILLA TORRICO;
MAG. SABINE TOTTER;
FRANK WETZIG;
CHRISTA ZRENNER;
PETITIONE
VS.
ACCOR NORTH AMERICA;
THE ACCOR GROUP;
SOFITEL MAGIC LAGOON RESORT & SPA;
NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC
ASSOCIATION (# 1) A/K/A NOAA;
THE KINGDOM OF THAILAND; AND
METEOROLOGICAL AGENCY OF THAILAND (# 2)
------------------------------
PETITIONERS, TSUNAMI VICTIMS GROUP [1] and some of its members, including ANNA BAJEK, BARTHOLOMÄUS BAJEK, JOHANN BAY, KERN BIBIANE, MANUELA BRANDENSTEIN, CHRISTOPHE BURTIN, JERZY CHOJNOWSKI, KONRAD CHOJNOWSKI, BERND EDUARD DRECHSEL, DR. PETER FERGER, HANS PETER FERGER, CHRISTEL FERGER, MONIKA FEUERSTEIN, MAGDALENA FRANEK, ELFRIEDE GAULHOFER, FRANZ GAULHOFER, LAURENT GUILLAUME, URSULA KARLIK, ANITA KIRISITS, WALTER KIRISITS, DR. CHRISTIAN KOBAU, DR. IRENE KOBAU, LOTTE KOBAU, NAMOANI KOBAU, PETER KOBAU, ALEXANDER KRAMMER, LIDIA KRUFFCZYK, SILVIA KULB-HOHNER, HEIKE LANGE LARRY LAZAR, ANDREA LEGER, FREIDA MATHIS, KERSTIN MATHIS, MARKUS MATHIS, MICHAEL R. MATHIS, THOMAS MATHIS, GURDRUN MATTHIES, WALTRAUD MITTERMAIER, JUDIT MOHOLA, LEOPOLD MRACSNA, MARIO NINAUS, LUIGI PROMENZIO, OLIVIA PROMENZIO, SUSANNE PROMENZIO, VICO PROMENZIO, DR. ALFRED RIESSER, DR. WALTRAUD RIESSER, MAG. KIRISTS ROMAN, SAMI ROMANI ANNY SADOVNIK, ANGELIKA SCHUHBECK-ALVES, HELMUT SCHWEIKER, SCOTT THERESIA, MAG. SABINE TOTTER, CSCILLA TORRICO FRANK WETZIG, CHRISTA ZRENNER; individually and on behalf of other members of the TSUNAMI VICTIMS GROUP, as and for their petition and complaint against the RESPONDENTS herein, upon information and belief, state the following:
DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES
PETITIONERS
1. PETITIONERS ANNA BAJEK, BARTHOLOMÄUS BAJEK, JOHANN BAY, KERN BIBIANE, MANUELA BRANDENSTEIN, CHRISTOPHE BURTIN, JERZY CHOJNOWSKI, KONRAD CHOJNOWSKI, BERND EDUARD DRECHSEL, DR. PETER FERGER, HANS PETER FERGER, CHRISTEL FERGER, MONIKA FEUERSTEIN, MAGDALENA FRANEK, ELFRIEDE GAULHOFER, FRANZ GAULHOFER, LAURENT GUILLAUME, URSULA KARLIK , ANITA KIRISITS, WALTER KIRISITS, DR. CHRISTIAN KOBAU, DR. IRENE KOBAU, LOTTE KOBAU, NAMOANI KOBAU, PETER KOBAU, ALEXANDER KRAMMER, LIDIA KRUFFCZYK, SILVIA KULB-HOHNER, HEIKE LANGE, LARRY LAZAR, ANDREA LEGER, FREIDA MATHIS, KERSTIN MATHIS, MARKUS MATHIS, MICHAEL R. MATHIS, THOMAS MATHIS, GURDRUN MATTHIES, WALTRAUD MITTERMAIER, JUDIT MOHOLA, LEOPOLD MRACSNA, MARIO NINAUS, LUIGI PROMENZIO, OLIVIA PROMENZIO, SUSANNE PROMENZIO, VICO PROMENZIO, DR. ALFRED RIESSER, DR. WALTRAUD RIESSER, MAG. KIRISTS ROMAN, SAMI ROMANI, ANNY SADOVNIK, ANGELIKA SCHUHBECK-ALVES, HELMUT SCHWEIKER, SCOTT THERESIA, MAG. SABINE TOTTER, CSCILLA TORRICO, FRANK WETZIG, CHRISTA ZRENNERare victims of the December 2004 Tsunami in Southeast Asia who are residents of Austria and Germany.
2. PETITIONERS TSUNAMI VICTIMS GROUP is a membership association open to all persons who are/were or whose family members are/were victims and/or suffered injuries during the December 26, 2004 Tsunami and its aftermath.DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTIES
PETITIONERS
1. PETITIONERS ANNA BAJEK, BARTHOLOMÄUS BAJEK, JOHANN BAY, KERN BIBIANE, MANUELA BRANDENSTEIN, CHRISTOPHE BURTIN, JERZY CHOJNOWSKI, KONRAD CHOJNOWSKI, BERND EDUARD DRECHSEL, DR. PETER FERGER, HANS PETER FERGER, CHRISTEL FERGER, MONIKA FEUERSTEIN, MAGDALENA FRANEK, ELFRIEDE GAULHOFER, FRANZ GAULHOFER, LAURENT GUILLAUME, URSULA KARLIK , ANITA KIRISITS, WALTER KIRISITS, DR. CHRISTIAN KOBAU, DR. IRENE KOBAU, LOTTE KOBAU, NAMOANI KOBAU, PETER KOBAU, ALEXANDER KRAMMER, LIDIA KRUFFCZYK, SILVIA KULB-HOHNER, HEIKE LANGE, LARRY LAZAR, ANDREA LEGER, FREIDA MATHIS, KERSTIN MATHIS, MARKUS MATHIS, MICHAEL R. MATHIS, THOMAS MATHIS, GURDRUN MATTHIES, WALTRAUD MITTERMAIER, JUDIT MOHOLA, LEOPOLD MRACSNA, MARIO NINAUS, LUIGI PROMENZIO, OLIVIA PROMENZIO, SUSANNE PROMENZIO, VICO PROMENZIO, DR. ALFRED RIESSER, DR. WALTRAUD RIESSER, MAG. KIRISTS ROMAN, SAMI ROMANI, ANNY SADOVNIK, ANGELIKA SCHUHBECK-ALVES, HELMUT SCHWEIKER, SCOTT THERESIA, MAG. SABINE TOTTER, CSCILLA TORRICO, FRANK WETZIG, CHRISTA ZRENNERare victims of the December 2004 Tsunami in Southeast Asia who are residents of Austria and Germany.
RESPONDENTS
3. RESPONDENTS ACCOR NORTH AMERICA and THE ACCOR GROUP (hereinafter “ACCOR” and/or “SOFITEL”) are an international hotel chain that owned, operated, managed and/or was responsible for and/or involved with a hotel located at Khao Lak Beach in Phuket, in the Kingdom of Thailand.
4. RESPONDENT SOFITEL MAGIC LAGOON RESORT & SPA is and was the resort which RESPONDENTS ACCOR and/or owned, operated, managed and/or for which they were responsible for and/or involved with and located at Khao Lak Beach in Phuket, in the Kingdom of Thailand.
5. RESPONDENT NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ASSOCIATION (# 1) a/k/a NOAA was and is an organ of the United States Government responsible for, among other things, issuance of seismological, earthquake, Tsunami and/or other atmospheric warnings.
6. RESPONDENT the kingdom of thailand (hereinafter “Thailand”) had responsibility and/or involvement with, among other things, (i) issuance, decisions to issue and language of seismological, earthquake, Tsunami and/or other atmospheric warnings and steps to be taken to protect their citizens, residents and others in cases of earthquake and Tsunami, (ii) communications and actions related to other RESPONDENTS related with the December 2004 Tsunami and (iii) events which transpired after the December 2004 Tsunami and which relate to PETITIONERS request for assistance, documents and other information.
7. RESPONDENT METEOROLOGICAL AGENCY OF THAILAND (hereinafter “MAT”) (# 2) was an agency of RESPONDENT THAILAND which was charged with the primary responsibility and/or decision making authority related to, among other things, (i) issuance, decisions to issue and language of seismological, earthquake, Tsunami and/or other atmospheric warnings and steps to be taken to protect their citizens, residents and others in cases of earthquake and Tsunami and (ii) communications and actions related to other RESPONDENTS related with the December 2004 Tsunami.
FACTS RELEVANT TO PETITION AND COMLAINT FOR DOCUMENTS
8. On December 26, 2004, one of the worst natural disasters in history (# 3) struck Southeast Asia.
9. An earthquake which first measured in excess of 8.0 and then measured up to 9.2 on the Richter Scale occurred in the Indian Ocean off the West Coast of Northern Sumatera. (# 4)
10. In the days before December 26, 2004, there was a steady instance and increase in seismological activity and earthquake eruptions which were detected by the monitoring stations.
11. The earthquake caused a phenomenon known as a Tsunami to form and to start on a path toward certain of the counties in Southeastern Asia, including but not limited to RESPONDENT The Kingdom of Thailand (hereinafter “Thailand”), RESPONDENT The Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka (hereinafter “Sri Lanka”) and other countries.
12. The earthquake and the Tsunami were also detected by meteorological stations in the Indian Ocean, especially the seismological station in the Kingdom of Thailand. (# 5)
13. Under normal circumstances, RESPONDENT National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (# 1) (hereinafter “NOAA”) meteorological stations which cover the area in which the earthquake and/or Tsunami occurred would compile data and forward it, together with such warning as may be merited given the state of scientific evidence, on to any and all countries which were or could be in the path of the deadly Tsunami wave.
14. Within minutes after the earthquake occurred, it was detected and it was possible for RESPONDENT NOAA to determine that the risk of a Tsunami existed, the direction in which the Tsunami wave would head, the countries and/or locations which lay in its course and the threat level. See Exhibit 1.
15. From available public information, RESPONDENT NOAA did not notify all involved countries which lay in the Tsunami’s path.
16. From public information it appears that RESPONDENT NOAA failed to issue an alert that would notify the countries where the Tsunami hit that the deadly wave was coming. See Exhibit 2.
17. In addition to the apparent NOAA alert failure, RESPONDENT Thailand did not issue a timely warning to persons in its country. In this regard, published reports emerged that upon receipt of the NOAA alert and other data, the seismological and oceanographic experts of Thailand spent more than one hour talking about what the risk may or may not have been, instead of immediately issuing a warning to their population and when they finally got around to making a decision about what to do, that decision was based upon the potential adverse economic impact on Thailand’s tourist industry if they issued a Tsunami warning instead of the potential loss of life and other human costs. See Exhibit 3.
18. This delay caused the unnecessary loss of thousands of persons who could have been saved.
19. Based on discoveries PETITIONERS has made to date, various officials and/or agents of RESPONDENT Thailand received adequate basic information upon which to conclude that the deadly wave was headed for its country and that persons, including PETITIONERS, were in danger.
20. However, despite having such information, such agents and/or officials of RESPONDENT Thailand failed to issue warnings, via radio, television, electronic notices, emergency broadcasts, air raids, to its emergency personnel, hotels, resorts and others so that persons could attempt to take precautions such as to notify persons in and around the beach area, that they should evacuate the beach area, low grounds and move to higher ground.
21. In addition, RESPONDENT Thailand had a duty to notify RESPONDENT Sri Lanka that the deadly Tsunami was headed for RESPONDENT Sri Lanka and that precautions should be taken there such as to alert the populations, via radio, television, electronic notices, emergency broadcasts, air raids, to take precautions such as persons in and around the beach area, that they should evacuate the beach area, low grounds and move to higher ground.
22. RESPONDENTS ACCOR and/or SOFITEL knew or should have known that their luxury resort and spa in Khao Lak was located precisely in the midst of the Interface between the India and Burma tectonic plates and that it was well known that in this area there were common, regular and serious risks of earthquakes and Tsunamis.
23. As a result, RESPONDENT ACCOR and/or SOFITEL had a duty to its guests, including some of the PETITIONERS herein, to operate and have at its luxury resort & spa – built in an earthquake and Tsunami fault zone – to be equipped with state of the art seismological and oceanographic detection equipment, warning and/or alert systems so that when an earthquake and Tsunami hit, the guests could be given notice of the impending dangers and they could then take proper and necessary precautions such as evacuating the beach, moving to higher ground and/or higher floors.
24. Based on information which PETITIONERS have obtained to date, there appears to have been a failure in one or more of the warning, evacuation and/or emergency alert systems, equipment or installations, such that guests did not receive timely notice of the approaching deadly wave.
25. The Tsunami wave brought with it death and destruction to everything that lay in its path.
26. In most instances, the difference between life and death was measured by a matter of how far off the beach people were when the wave hit.
27. In the days and weeks after the Tsunami struck, the PETITIONERS along with hundreds of thousands of other victims often found themselves in a desperate search (i) for family members lost in the Tsunami, (ii) for information about family members lost in the Tsunami, (iii) for assistance in recovering for burial in their countries the remains of family members lost in the Tsunami and (iv) for information about how and why the Tsunami seemed to have struck without warning.
28. Often times, the PETITIONERS were caught in bureaucratic red-tape with no information forthcoming or with no information about where to direct questions for information and assistance.
29. In addition to the bureaucratic red-tape, PETITIONERS have started to discover that various of the officials and/or agents of one or more of the RESPONDENTS has been fired and/or terminated and may not be available to testify because he or she moves to a location, with his/her records, which is beyond the PETITIONERS, the US Court’s and RESPONDENTS ability to compel such persons to provide evidence related to the disaster and PETITIONERS potential claims.
30. Also, PETITIONERS have started to discover that documents and evidence:
a. Are being discarded and/or moved to locations which may make them unavailable and/or inaccessible;
b. Are allowed to deteriorate or damaged due to poor storage conditions;
c. Are being destroyed in the normal course of business as certain tapes, photographs, computer stored data and other information is regularly purged from RESPONDENTS systems;
d. Are being moved from its/their normal storage locations to unknown and/or inaccessible locations and/or facilities; and
e. Are being classified, marked as confidential and/or otherwise designated as secret and/or not to be disclosed to PETITIONERS and the public.
31. PETITIONERS have discovered instances where persons and witnesses who have information relevant to PETITIONERS potential claims are suffering from physical and/or emotional conditions which make it probable that their testimony may not be available when PETITIONERS may seek to prosecute whatever potential claims as they may have.
32. PETITIONERS have discovered instances where personal belonging are reported to have been stolen and human remains are reported to have simply disappeared despite PETITIONERS requests that the remains of their family members be returned to them for burial in their home countries.
33. The December 2004 Tsunami was one of the greatest natural disasters in history. (# 6)
34. The losses, damages and sufferings of the hundreds of thousands of citizens of the affected countries are beyond measure.
35. It is the responsibility of each affected country to take care of their own citizens and other persons for whom it/they assumed a responsibility to provide certain safety and other conditions and/or services.
36. PETITIONERS and other members of the TVG found themselves in the position of tourists, guests or in some instances business people who were totally dependent upon and reasonably expected to be protected by the systems, equipment, warnings, technology, alerts, procedures and protocols which RESPONDENTS ACCOR and/or SOFITEL, NOAA, THAILAND and MAT(# 2) were to follow.
37. PETITIONERS and other TVG members have tried to get access to and preserve the evidence and information which is the subject of this petition without having to file same but to no avail.
38. PETITIONERS and other TVG members need this information, documents and/or other assistance to help them (i) to preserve evidence and witness testimony, (ii) to gather the information to determine what if any claim they may have and against whom/which entity the claims should be made and (iii) to assist them move forward trying to recover for the horrors of the December 2004 Tsunami and to help the world learn a lesson so that such a disaster never happens again to such innocent people.
PETITIONERS’ VERIFICATION OF ELEMENTS OF RULE 27 (a) (1)
Requirement # 1 – Petitioners Expect to be Parties to Action Cognizable in a Court of the US but is Presently Unable to Bring It or Cause It to be Brought
Requirement # 4 – Names and Addresses of the Individuals Whom Petitioners Expect to be Adverse Parties
57. PETITIONERS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and everyone one of the above allegations as if the same were set forth fully and at length herein.
PETITIONERS’ VERIFICATION OF ELEMENTS OF RULE 27 (a) (1)
Requirement # 1 – Petitioners Expect to be Parties to Action Cognizable in a Court of the US but is Presently Unable to Bring It or Cause It to be Brought
39. PETITIONERS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and everyone one of the above allegations as if the same were set forth fully and at length herein.
40. PETITIONERS expect to be parties to an action which can be heard in either this or another Court of the United States.
41. PETITIONERS are presently unable to bring the cause of action because they do not yet know against who/which entities the claims should be brought.
42. As set forth in greater detail below, the PETITIONERS require RESPONDENTS to produce the requested information before some of the time for some of the claims expires or before the PETITIONERS suffer further unnecessary and irreparable harm and/or before the evidence is no longer available because witnesses become sick, incapacitated, incapable of testifying, and because other evidence disappears or is otherwise not available or accessible to PETITIONERS.
Requirement # 2 – Subject Matter of Action & Petitioners’ Interests Therein
Requirement # 2 – Subject Matter of Action & Petitioners’ Interests Therein
43. PETITIONERS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and everyone one of the above allegations as if the same were set forth fully and at length herein.
44. As indicated above, PETITIONERS believe they may have a cause of action against one, more or all of the RESPONDENTS and possibly other persons, predicated upon an alleged or perceived failure in one or more of the warning, evacuation and/or emergency alert systems, equipment or installations, such that PETITIONERS and others did not receive timely notice of the approaching deadly wave, and other potentially careless, reckless, negligent and/or wrongful acts and/or omissions which occurred in the post Tsunami period and which cause PETITIONERS further unnecessary damages and injuries.
45. PETITIONERS’ interests in such a potential future claim are, among other things, for potential equitable, injunctive, compensatory and punitive damages.
Requirement # 3 – Facts which Petitioners Wish to Establish by Proposed Testimony and Evidence and Reasons for Desiring to Perpetuate Testimony
46. PETITIONERS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and everyone one of the above allegations as if the same were set forth fully and at length herein.
Requirement # 3 – Facts which Petitioners Wish to Establish by Proposed Testimony and Evidence and Reasons for Desiring to Perpetuate Testimony
46. PETITIONERS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and everyone one of the above allegations as if the same were set forth fully and at length herein.
47. PETITIONERS have a reasonable belief that RESPONDENTS are in possession of documents related to PETITIONERS’ potential claims predicated upon an alleged or perceived failure in one or more of the warning, evacuation and/or emergency alert systems, equipment or installations, such that PETITIONERS and others did not receive timely notice of the approaching deadly wave, and other potentially careless, reckless, negligent and/or wrongful acts and/or omissions which occurred in the post Tsunami period and which cause PETITIONERS further unnecessary damages and injuries.
48. PETITIONERS believe that EACH of the RESPONDENTS in the normal course of business should maintain documents related to PETITIONERS’ potential claims predicated upon an alleged or perceived failure in one or more of the warning, evacuation and/or emergency alert systems, equipment or installations, such that PETITIONERS and others did not receive timely notice of the approaching deadly wave, and other potentially careless, reckless, negligent and/or wrongful acts and/or omissions which occurred in the post Tsunami period and which cause PETITIONERS further unnecessary damages and injuries.
49. PETITIONERS believe that EACH of the RESPONDENTS in the normal course of business should maintain documents during related to the relevant warning, evacuation and/or emergency alert systems, equipment or installations, related to notice or lack of notice of the approaching deadly wave, and other acts and/or omissions which occurred in the post Tsunami period and which cause PETITIONERS further unnecessary damages and injuries, including but not limited to
a. Correspondence exchanged between RESPONDENTS;
b. Notice sent to or received by RESPONDENTS ACCOR, SOFITEL (and particularly the Magic Lagoon & Spa Facility, from RESPONDENT NOAA;
c. RESPONDENT computer files and all backups related to the events of December 26, 2004 from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
d. RESPONDENT documents and records of all warnings generated and distributed on December 26, 2004 from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
e. RESPONDENT documents and records of all notices and/or information related to the approaching Tsunami received via TV, radio, email and/or satellite on December 26, 2004 from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
f. Satellite and/or computer generated and/or video phone photographs and/or imagery and any videos or cameras showing Khao Lak beach, RESPONDENT THAILAND’s coast, SRI LANKA’s coast and RESPONDENTS ACCOR & SOFITEL hotel on December 26, 2004 from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
g. All electronic, phone messages, emails, computer generated and/or other correspondence between RESPONDENT NOAA and THAILAND and/or non-RESPONDENT Sri Lankan scientists, environmental, weather, seismological and other experts on December 26, 2004 from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
h. All voice recordings, videos, tapes and/or other recording devices showing how RESPONDENT NOAA determined to include and/or exclude certain language in the warnings issue;
i. Copies of RESPONDENT NOAA investigations related to the events from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
j. Computer and/or electronically stored records of RESPONDENT NOAA reports, memoranda and other information provided to the US Congress, Senate and President on December 26, 2004 from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
k. Computer and/or electronically stored records of RESPONDENT NOAA reports, memoranda and other information provided by to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and/or US military bases in the Pacific and/or Indian and/or other oceans and particular to the base at Diego Garcia, on December 26, 2004 from first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka
l. Computer and/or electronically stored records and/or information or reports exchanged by and between RESPONDENT NOAA and RESPONDENT THAILAND on December 26, 2004 from first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
m. Computer and/or electronically stored records and/or information or reports exchanged by and between RESPONDENTS NOAA, THAILAND and non-RESPONDENT Sri Lanka on December 26, 2004 from first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
n. Computer and/or electronically stored records and/or information maintained by RESPONDENT ACCOR and/or its facility in Thailand about instances of earthquake, Tsunami, environmental impact, catastrophic event risks, and insurance policies and related to the events of December 26, 2004 from first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
o. Computer and/or electronically stored records and/or information maintained by RESPONDENT ACCOR and/or its facility in Thailand related to insurance, earthquake, atmospheric, seismological experts consulted before building of the facility in Thailand on Khao Lak beach and related to the events of December 26, 2004 from first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
p. Computer and/or electronically stored records and/or information maintained by RESPONDENT ACCOR and/or its facility in Thailand related to known risks of earthquake and Tsunami to the facility in Thailand on Khao Lak beach and related to the events of December 26, 2004 from first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
q. Computer and/or electronically stored records and/or information exchanged between DEFENDANTS ACCOR and/or its facility in Thailand, and RESPONDENT THAILAND related to known risks of earthquake and Tsunami to the facility in Thailand on Khao Lak beach and related to the events of December 26, 2004 from first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka; and
r. Computer and/or electronically stored records and/or information maintained locally in RESPONDENT THAILAND related to permits granted to build, representations about safety and warning systems, emergency facilities and systems, seismological data, safety training, ACCOR registration to be /or its facility in Thailand, and RESPONDENT THAILAND’S known risks of earthquake and Tsunami to the facility in Thailand on Khao Lak beach and related to the events of December 26, 2004 from first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
50. PETITIONERS representatives have inquired about preserving and obtaining the evidence and have been told that many of the things they request are not in their possession, or have been destroyed either in the normal course of business or during the Tsunami disaster or have been classified as confidential for variety governmental or military or other reasons.
51. PETITIONERS need to have the documents from RESPONDENTS and the testimony of RESPONDENTS custodian of records and/or employees before they disappear and/or are no longer under the RESPONDENTS control.
52. The documents and information from above are they necessary for PETITIONERS to be able to establish, among other things (i) who/which parties should be named in a complaint; (ii) what causes of action should be set forth in the complaint, (iii) what are the relevant Federal Statutes, if any, upon which a complaint should be based, (iv) what is applicable statute of limitations for PETITIONERS claims and (v) what damages, including potential exemplary, treble and/or punitive damages, and (vi) what injunctive relief, if any, may be requested.
53. At all times relevant hereto, RESPONDENTS are, should be, were and/or should have been in possession of the information and documents, which are necessary for the claims which PETITIONERS believe should be made and which may involve one or more of the instant RESPONDENTS and other parties whose identities are not presently known to PETITIONERS and can only be discovered through access to the requested documents.
54. At all times relevant hereto, PETITIONERS has reason to believe that RESPONDENTS have the requested and necessary documents in their possession, custody and/or control.
55. At all times relevant hereto, PETITIONERS and/or PETITIONERS’S Predecessors in Interest has/have been unable to secure the production of documents from the RESPONDENTS.
56. WHEREFORE, PETITIONERS demands and prays that judgment be entered compelling RESPONDENTS to produce the documents and evidence, which are in their custody, possession and/or control. Requirement # 4 – Names and Addresses of the Individuals Whom Petitioners Expect to be Adverse Parties
57. PETITIONERS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and everyone one of the above allegations as if the same were set forth fully and at length herein.
58. PEITIONERS expect that one or more to the RESPONDENTS may be adverse parties.
59. The addresses for the RESPONDENTS who are expected to be adverse parties are:
a. ACCOR NORTH AMERICA at its US corporate headquarters in Texas or one of its corporate facilities within this judicial district;
b. THE ACCOR GROUP at its US corporate headquarters in Texas or one of its facilities within this judicial district;
c. SOFITEL MAGIC LAGOON RESORT & SPA c/o their US corporate headquarters in Texas or one of its corporate facilities within this judicial district;
d. NATIONAL OCEANIC & ATMOSPHERIC ASSOCIATION (# 1) a/k/a NOAA, at their offices in Washington DC and/or one of their facilities within this judicial district;
e. THE KINGDON OF THAILAND, at their embassy in Washington DC and their consulate offices in New York City; and
f. METEOROLOGICAL AGENCY of THAILAND (“MAT”) (# 2) c/o of RESPONDENT THAILAND at their embassy in Washington DC and their consulate offices in New York City.
Requirement # 5 – Names of the Persons to be Examined
60. PETITIONERS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and everyone one of the above allegations as if the same were set forth fully and at length herein.
60. PETITIONERS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and everyone one of the above allegations as if the same were set forth fully and at length herein.
61. PETITIONERS intend to examine the following persons:
a. RESPONDENTS’ custodian of records with primary custody and responsibilities for maintaining the above records related to, among other things, issuance, decisions to issue and language of seismological, earthquake, Tsunami and/or other atmospheric warnings and steps to be taken to protect their citizens, residents and others in cases of earthquake and Tsunami and communications and actions related to other RESPONDENTS related to the events of December 26, 2004 from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka;
b. Suparek Thantiratanawong, director general of MAT (# 2) what has been removed from his position and may soon be outside the employ of the RESPONDENT THAILAND;
c. Smith Thammasaroj – RESPONDENT THAILAND’s representative – with knowledge of whatever records may exist related to, among other things, issuance, decisions to issue and language of seismological, earthquake, Tsunami and/or other atmospheric warnings and steps to be taken to protect their citizens, residents and others in cases of earthquake and Tsunami and communications and actions related to other RESPONDENTS related with the to the events of December 26, 2004 from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka; and
d. PETITIONERS
62. In addition to the depositions, PETITIONERS request that the Court direct RESPONDENTS to produce the documents specifically identified herein so that they can be preserved and so that PETITIONERS can evaluate same and determine which if any claims they have against which of the RESPONDENTS and others and for what damages.
63. Each of the proposed deponents will provide testimony related to the existence of documents and/or evidence which was/were and/or are in RESPONDENTS possession and related to, among other things, issuance, decisions to issue and language of seismological, earthquake, Tsunami and/or other atmospheric warnings and steps to be taken to protect their citizens, residents and others in cases of earthquake and Tsunami and communications and actions related to other RESPONDENTS related to the events of December 26, 2004 from the first instance of detecting the earthquake through the time when the Tsunami wave hit Sri Lanka.
COURT’S JURISDICTION OVER PETITION AND
ONE OR MORE OF POTENTIAL RESPONDENTS
64. PETITIONERS believe that in the event a claim may ultimately be made against RESPONDENTS ACCOR and/or SOFITEL this Court will ultimately have jurisdiction over said RESPONDENTS ACCOR and/or SOFITEL insofar as they are US companies which conduct systematic and continuous business in the US and/or are resident within this judicial district.
65. PETITIONERS believe that in the event a claim may ultimately be made against RESPONDENT National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (# 1) a/k/a NOAA, this Court has jurisdiction over NOAA insofar as it is an organ and/or agency of the US government and had involvement with the events described herein and can be considered resident within this judicial district.
66. PETITIONERS believe that a Court in the US will have jurisdiction over whatever claims as PETITIONERS may ultimately have and/or make against RESPONDENT THAILAND pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1330, 1605 and 1608 et seq. (providing exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act).
67. PETITIONERS believe that a Court in the US will have jurisdiction over whatever claims as PETITIONERS may have and/or make against RESPONDENT MAT (# 2) insofar as it is an agency of the government of THAILAND and pursuant to 28 USC §§ 1330, 1605 and 1608 et seq. (providing exceptions to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act)it is subject to the PETITIONERS demands herein.
68. PETITIONERS believe that a Court in the US will have jurisdiction over whatever claims as PETITIONERS may have and/or make against any of the RESPONDENTS and others through diversity of citizenship, pursuant to 28 USC § 1332, and because said RESPONDENTS and others individually (i) maintain or maintained agents, representatives, personnel, officials and/or assets within and/or (ii) conducts or conducted regular, continuous and systematic business and/or communications related to PETITIONERS claims herein within this judicial district, (iii) documents related PETITIONERS claims were sent into and/or are present or maintained in this judicial district, (iv) engage or engaged in commerce in the US, and (vi) sent, directed, caused to be sent/directed mail, wires, facsimiles, telephonic or other electronic communications and/or solicitations into and/or from the US.
69. PETITIONERS believe that venue in this Court would be proper over whatever claims as PETITIONERS may have and/or make against any of the RESPONDENTS and others since the RESPONDENTS do business and may be found in the District within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. ¶¶ 1391(a), and 28 U.S.C. ¶¶ 1350.
70. PETITIONERS believe that venue in this Court would be proper over whatever claims as PETITIONERS may have and/or make against any of the RESPONDENTS and others and that in the event, the Court should determine that venue may be lacking in this Court, then pursuant to 28 USC ¶¶ 1400 and 1401, the Court may transfer the action to another district where the case could have originally been filed.
PETITIONERS’ REQUEST FOR ORDER AUTHORIZING THE TAKING OF DEPOSITIONS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PERSONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERPETUATING TESTIMONY AND PRESERVING DOCUMENTS.
71. PETITIONERS repeat, re-allege and incorporate each and everyone one of the above allegations as if the same were set forth fully and at length herein.
72. Some of the RESPONDENTS named herein and other third parties witnesses, are (i) persons who are of advanced age, beyond 80 years old, with series medical or other conditions or (ii) other persons who are being relocated, removed from positions and transferred so that it makes it probable that they may not be available to testify or capable of or accessible to PETITIONERS for testimony in the future.
73. Such testimony needs to be preserved for the parties and the Court in the future.
74. WHEREFORE, PETITIONERS respectfully request this Court grant an Order authorizing PETITIONERS to take depositions and directing RESPONDENTS to preserve, identify and produce certain documents related to the claims which PETITIONERS believe they may have and/or which they believe they may make.
Dated: _______________ _________________________
Edward D. Fagan, Esq.
140 Broadway, 46th Floor
New York, NY 10005
Tel. (212) 858-7605
Plaintiff Pro-Se and Plaintiffs’ Co-Counsel
NOTE: ALL COUNSEL INCLUDING EUROPEAN CO-COUNSEL ARE WORKING IN THIS PETITION ON A STRICTLY PRO-BONO BASIS TO ASSIST PETITIONERS PRESERVE TESTIMONY, GAIN ACCESS TO THE DOCUMENTS AND PRESERVE EVIDENCE.
EUROPEAN CO-COUNSEL
DR. HERWIG HASSLACHER
A-9500 Villach, Hauptplatz 25
Austria
Tel. +43-4242-219-399
Fax +43-4242-219-366
DR. GERHARD PODOVSOVNIK
1010 Wien, Habsburgergasse 6-8
Austria
Tel. +43-1-536-37-850
Fax +43-1-536-37-888
VERIFICATION
Dr. Alfred Riesser, declares and says, in support of this petition, the following:
My family and I went on holiday to The Sofitel Magic Lagoon & Spa at Khao Lak, Thailand. We were not warned at any time of the Tsunami wave coming directly at us. I was not in my room when the Tsunami wave hit but my son was in the room sitting at the desk and my wife Waltraud was on the terrace of her room. After the Tsunami hit, I searched for my son and the first place I went was back to the room, I found my son’s dead body lodged between wood in the room. I identity him but was unable to pull the body out without assistance. There had been only German couple waiting for me in front of the hotel. No officials of the Hotel had been in the hotel anymore. The Hotel looked devastated but stable. Finally because of the danger of a new wave I did not go to the hotel anymore. Family Brauner tried to go to the hotel on the 27. But the entry had been refused to them by the officials of the hotel because of “danger of instability” of the bungalows. Two days later family Brauner tried again to go to the hotel. At that time was no “danger” anymore! They wanted to get out the money of their safe but the save was empty. They only got back their passports. They also inspected the room of my son Gregor, the dead body was not there anymore. On the 26th and 27 of Dec 2004, I told two representatives of the Takua Pa hospital that my son was lying in the room 5135. On the 28th we flew back home with the air ambulance because of the very serious injuries of my wife. At home I found out that the body of my beloved son was lost. I have tried in vain to get the information we are requesting and I have tried in vain to get information about what happened to my son’s body. I have other claims but for purposes of this Petition, we pray the US Court will help us get this information from SOFITEL, NOAA and THAILAND.
I am a member of the Tsunami Victims Group and fully support the petition for evidence, documents and information.
I hereby certify the foregoing to be true to the best of my knowledge information and belief. I make this statement under penalty of perjury.
Date: ______________ ______________________________
[1] The Tsunami Victims Group (“TVG”) is a not for profit organization which is being formed under the civil laws of Austria and Germany to assist persons who suffered physical, emotional, economic injuries in the December 2004 Tsunami. TVG was founded primarily to assist families to, among other things, (i) help secure the return of human remains, (ii) help in locate and/or identify persons who remain listed as missing, (iii) secure personal belongings, (iv) secure complete disclosure of documents explaining how the events of December 26, 2004 unfolded and to help the families determine what, if any, mistakes, wrongful acts and/or omissions to act occurred, (v) to push for the formal creation of humanitarian funds to assist the TVG families and (vi) to lobby for improved safety procedures, systems and/or equipment. Although originally established by victim families from Austrian and Germany who were caught in the Tsunami, TVG continues to expand and from time to time may include families from other countries who may wish to join TVG.
******************
CORRECTION # 1: ADMINISTRATION
CORRECTION # 2: THAI METEOROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT (TMD)
CORRECTION # 3: one of the worst natural event in history and the worst man-made tsunami massacre in living memory
CORRECTION # 4: A tremendous earthquake which first measured on the moment magnitude scale (abbreviated as MW) in excess of 8.0 and then measured up to 9.1 (finaly upgrated to 9.3) occurred in the Indian Ocean (Java Trench) with its epicenter off the West Coast of Northern Sumatera.
CORRECTION # 5: The mega earthquake was detected within minutes by seismic stations and networks worldwide and was especially detected by the seismological Thai authority (TMD) and it's seismic stations in the Kingdom of Thailand. The Tsunami wave hit the Coasts of Northern Sumatera, of the Nikobars and the Andamans, destreoyed them and killed there likely more then 200.000 people long before the Tsunami struck the West Cost of Thailand and the Costs of Sri Lanka. The transoceanic Tsunami wave in the Indian Ocean was not only detected by authorities of the Indian Ocena Rim Countries but also by the U.S. reconnaissance satellites and satellites of the respondent NOAA.
CORRECTION # 5: The mega earthquake was detected within minutes by seismic stations and networks worldwide and was especially detected by the seismological Thai authority (TMD) and it's seismic stations in the Kingdom of Thailand. The Tsunami wave hit the Coasts of Northern Sumatera, of the Nikobars and the Andamans, destreoyed them and killed there likely more then 200.000 people long before the Tsunami struck the West Cost of Thailand and the Costs of Sri Lanka. The transoceanic Tsunami wave in the Indian Ocean was not only detected by authorities of the Indian Ocena Rim Countries but also by the U.S. reconnaissance satellites and satellites of the respondent NOAA.
CORRECTION # 6: was one ot the greatest man-made calamity in history
Remarks:
Please note: All foregoing corrections and remarks has been made by
Jerzy Chojnowski
Chairman-GTVRG e.V.
www.gtvrg.de
Remarks:
1) The LIST of RESPONDENTS is in neither case conclusively regulated nor final but still open and preliminary only.
2) The LIST of RESPONDENTS shall comprise the most of 26 participating Member States of the International Coordination Group for the Tsunami Warning System (TWS), i.e.: Australia, Canada, Chile, China (People's Republic of China (PRC)/Republic of China (ROC/Hong Kong), France, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Philippines, Russia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, United Kingdom and the United States of America.
3) The LIST of RESPONDENTS shall contain the following Indian Ocean Rim Countries: Australia, Bahrain, Egypt, France (Réunion, Mayotte, Djibouti), Indonesia, India, Iran, Israel, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Mauritius, Oman, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Seychelles, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Tanzania/Zanzibar, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom (BIOT/Chagos Archipelago) and the USA (Diego Garcia).
4) The LIST of Thai CO-RESPONDENTS shall contain: The Thai Government a) Thaksin Shinawatra as the Prime Minister, b) The Office of the Prime Minister (OPM): The Internal Security Operations Command (ISOC), The National Intelligence Agency and The Office of the National Security Council (NSC); c) The Ministry of Interior (MOI): Department of Disaster Prevention and Mitigation; d) The Thai Meteorological Department (TMD); e) The Royal Thai Survey Department (The Royal Thai Armed Forces); f) The Ministry of Transport (Marine Department); g) The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT); h) The Royal Thai Armed Forces: the military police watching the hotel areas and The Royal Thai Navy (RTN): the Commander-in-Chief and the Andaman Sea Fleet Command; i) the provincial’s governments (governors, coastal district chiefs and clerks) of the provinces Phang Nga, Phuket and Krabi; j) the Thai tourism industry right there managing the hotels in the tsunami prone coastal zones destroyed or devastated by the tsunami 2004 (see Exhibit ...).
(...) Please note: All foregoing corrections and remarks has been made by
Jerzy Chojnowski
Chairman-GTVRG e.V.
www.gtvrg.de
PS. Eines möchte ich gleich klarstellen: Wir stehen zu unseren Anwälten, so wie sie zu uns Opfern gestanden haben. One thing I would like to clarify: We stand by our lawyers, as they stood by us victims.
Ed Fagan
Ed Fagan (eigentlich Edward Fagan; * 20. Oktober 1952 in
Harlingen, Texas) ist ein US-amerikanischer Jurist und ehemaliger Anwalt, der
sich vor allem international mit Schadenersatzklagen beschäftigte. Er ist
Mitglied des Jüdischen Weltkongresses.
Frühes Leben
Fagans Vater verließ die Familie. Fagan hat zwei Brüder,
Wayne (Anwalt in San Antonio) und Abraham. Er folgte seinem Bruder Abraham,
einem orthodoxen Juden, nach Israel und wollte zunächst selbst Rabbiner werden.
Bald darauf ging er in die USA zurück und besuchte die Cardozo Law School der
Yeshiva-Universität in New York, die er 1980 abschloss.
Einige Jahre vertrat er Tabak- und Pharmaunternehmen gegen
Haftungsklagen. Ende der 1980er Jahre suchte er neue Herausforderungen und
gründete einen Exploration Club mit dem Ziel, vermögende Urlauber in Begleitung
von Meeres- und Umweltwissenschaftlern auf Segeltörns an exotische Orte zu
bringen. 1991 gründete er zur Förderung von Umweltforschungen die Odyssoe
Foundation als nichtkommerziellen Ableger des Clubs. Das Unternehmen scheiterte
und Fagan wurde erneut Jurist.
Fagan & Associates
1994 gründete Fagan die Anwaltskanzlei Fagan &
Associates in Lower Manhattan. Durch gerichtliche Auseinandersetzungen mit
Nynex Corp. und deren Nachfolger Verizon Communications im Zusammenhang mit
Schulden der Odyssoe Foundation sowie wegen unbezahlter Mieten musste er seine
Büros aufgeben und mietete Räume von einer anderen Kanzlei im World Trade
Center. Er besaß Arbeitslizenzen für New York und New Jersey.
Seit 2005 hat Fagan sich gegen Vorwürfe der Veruntreuung von
Klientengeldern vor dem New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics zu verteidigen.
Schadenersatzklagen
1998 vertrat er den Jüdischen Weltkongress im Verfahren um
jüdische Vermögen bei Schweizer Banken (Nachrichtenlose Vermögen) vor dem U.S.
District Court in Brooklyn, New York. Der Erfolg des Verfahrens steigerte seine
Popularität erheblich. Im Jahr 2000 vertrat Fagan Holocaustopfer bei ihren
Klagen in Deutschland und Österreich. Bei der Unterzeichnung der Vereinbarung
zur Gründung der Stiftung Erinnerung, Verantwortung und Zukunft im Juli 2000
war Fagan anwesend, als einer der beiden von Deutschland eingesetzten
Vermittler erhielt er 62,5 Millionen Dollar Honorar. An der Vereinbarung mit
den in New York beklagten Schweizer Banken war er ebenso beteiligt.
Seit 2002 vertrat seine Kanzlei asiatische Zwangsarbeiter
sowie alliierte Kriegsgefangene gegen japanische Unternehmen bei einem
Streitwert von 50 Milliarden Dollar. Zahlreiche Betroffene mit dem Wunsch nach
Anerkennung ihrer Leiden im Pazifikkrieg demonstrierten unterstützend in Seoul.
2004 strengte er als Vertreter von Apartheid-Opfern ein Verfahren gegen die
Regierung Südafrikas an.
Beim Kaprun-Prozess vertrat Fagan ausschließlich
US-amerikanische Opfer und Angehörige von Opfern der Brandkatastrophe der
Gletscherbahn Kaprun 2 vom 11. November 2000. Aufgrund von Streitigkeiten mit
dem Landesgericht Linz bekam er dabei Arbeitsverbot in Österreich. Am 10. April
2006 brachte er beim US Federal Court eine Schadenersatzklage gegen die
Republik Österreich ein und verlangte pro Todesopfer und Überlebenden der
Katastrophe zehn Millionen Dollar.
Gemeinsam mit den
österreichischen Juristen Herwig Hasslacher und Gerhard Podovsovnik brachte
Fagan im Februar 2005 in New York eine Klage nach der Tsunami-Katastrophe in
Südostasien vom 26. Dezember 2004 ein. Die Anwälte wollten angebliche
Versäumnisse des US-amerikanischen Pacific Tsunami Warning Center, der
thailändischen Meteorologischen Anstalt, der Hotelgruppe Accor und des
Königreichs Thailand belegen. Sie vertreten rund 60 Opfer, vorwiegend aus
Österreich und Deutschland.
Im November 2006 reichte er zusammen mit dem Münchener
Rechtsanwalt Michael Witti im Auftrag zweier Bewohner des rumänischen Dorfes
Glod, einem Drehort des Films Borat, eine Klage gegen die Produktionsfirma 20th
Century Fox in Höhe von 30 Millionen Dollar ein. Sie blieb allerdings
erfolglos.[1]
Callgirl-Affäre
Im Rahmen von Ermittlungen gegen einen Wiener Callgirl-Ring
wurde Ed Fagan 2005 beschuldigt, Sex mit einer minderjährigen litauischen
Prostituierten gehabt zu haben. In einem Interview gestand Fagan, eine
Beziehung zu einer Frau zu unterhalten, die ihm ihr Alter mit 22 Jahren
angegeben habe.[2]
Finanzielle Schwierigkeiten
Einem Bericht der Schweizer SonntagsZeitung zufolge hatte Ed
Fagan am 13. Februar 2007 in Florida einen Konkursantrag eingereicht, um damit
einem drohenden Konkursverfahren in New Jersey zuvorzukommen.
Laut SonntagsZeitung hatte Fagan bei 18 Gläubigern insgesamt
9,4 Millionen Dollar Schulden, auch seinem Schweizer Partner Norbert Gschwend
schulde der Anwalt drei Millionen Dollar. Gschwend soll dies gegenüber der
Nachrichtenagentur SDA bestätigt haben.
Berufsverbot
Am 12. Dezember 2008 wurde Fagan in New York die
Anwaltszulassung entzogen. Er hatte eine Gerichtsstrafe, die wegen seines
persönlichen finanziellen Interesses am Ausgang des Restitutionsprozesses
verhängt worden war, nicht bezahlt. Weiterhin blieb er der Bank Austria fast
350.000 Dollar schuldig. Wegen eines „Musters früherer Sanktionen wegen
unprofessionellen Betragens“ und seinem „Mangel an Reue“ beschloss die
Berufungskammer, Fagan sei „untauglich für den Anwaltsberuf“.[3]
Am 24. Juni 2009 wurde Ed Fagan auch in New Jersey die
Anwaltslizenz entzogen. Mehr als zehn Jahre lang hat die Abteilung für
Anwaltsethik beim Obersten Gericht in New Jersey gegen Fagan ermittelt. Nach
etlichen Verfahrensschritten und einer letzten mündlichen Anhörung hat das
Gericht in New Jersey Fagan nun unwiderruflich die Anwaltslizenz entzogen und
seine sämtlichen Guthaben bei Banken in dem Gliedstaat beschlagnahmt. Dies
meldet die jüdische Zeitschrift Tachles, der das Urteil vorliegt. Fagan muss
überdies für die Verfahrenskosten aufkommen. Das Gericht hält es für erwiesen,
dass Fagan seine Mandantinnen Gizelle Weisshaus und Estelle Sapir um etwa
350.000 Dollar betrogen hat. Die beiden Frauen waren nach Einreichung der
Bankenklage zu Symbolen der Affäre um die nachrichtenlosen Konten geworden.
Fagan war danach bei den Zwangsarbeits-Verhandlungen mit
Deutschland und den Holocaust-Klagen gegen österreichische Banken sowie
zahlreiche europäische Versicherer beteiligt. Obwohl er bei den politischen
Verhandlungen keine maßgebliche Rolle gespielt hat, konnte Fagan aus den
verschiedenen Vergleichen etwa 6 Millionen Dollar an Honoraren lukrieren. Er
hat danach seit dem Jahr 2000 bei mindestens 80 Verfahren keinen einzigen
Erfolg mehr erzielt, verstand es jedoch, die Medien etwa durch seine Klage
gegen den Borat-Darsteller Sacha Baron Cohen auf sich aufmerksam zu machen.
Fagan hat laut Gerichtsunterlagen über 15 Millionen Dollar Schulden bei
ehemaligen Mandanten und Kreditgebern, die seine Klagen unterstützt hatten.
Siehe auch
Christoph Meili
Literatur
Edward Fagan, in: Internationales Biographisches Archiv
23/2013 vom 4. Juni 2013, im Munzinger-Archiv (Artikelanfang frei abrufbar)
Weblinks
Dossier Ed Fagan bei Spiegel Online
Harte Vorwürfe an Ed Fagan − Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 28. Mai
2005
Porträt Ed Fagan als Radiofeature
US-Gericht entzieht Ed Fagan die Anwaltslizenz − Neue
Zürcher Zeitung, 24. Juni 2009
Quellen
↑ Klage gegen Borat: Staranwälte vertreten Dorfbewohner,
Spiegel Online, amg/dpa, 28. November 2006
↑ Fagan gesteht Kontakte zu Callgirl-Ring In: ORF vom 14.
September 2005
↑ Lawyer Disbarred for Failing to Pay Sanctions, Fees in
Holocaust Case (englisch)
Diese Seite wurde zuletzt am 8. Juni 2017 um 18:51 Uhr
bearbeitet.
###
Ed Fagan
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Edward Davis "Ed" Fagan (born October 20, 1952) is
a controversial former American reparations lawyer who was disbarred for his
conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation.[1] Fagan
lost his license in both New York[2] and New Jersey for failing to pay court
fines and fees and for stealing client money and escrow trust funds from
Holocaust survivors. He currently lives in Prague.[3]
Background
Fagan was born in Harlingen, Texas and raised in a
Conservative Jewish[3] home in San Antonio, Texas and has two children. Prior
to embarking on his legal career, he traveled to Israel to take part in the Yom
Kippur War.[3][4] After returning to the US, he enrolled in Cardozo School of
Law and graduated in 1980.[5] He initially worked as a personal injury
lawyer,[2] then worked with a large law firm, representing corporate
defendants, before he started an exploration club for the wealthy in the 1980s,
allowing rich customers to visit exotic locations, entertained and accompanied
by scientists and environmentalists. A nonprofit venture of the business, the
Odyssoe Foundation, was created in 1991, but collapsed with the entire
enterprise.[5]
Clients and partners have stated publicly and in court, that
Fagan often failed to represent the interest of his clients, he generally took
on "too many clients", "vastly outstrip[ed] his resources",
and was "often absent for the legal fight". According to Burt
Neuborne, law professor at New York University, who had worked with Mr. Fagan
before breaking with him, "Mr. Fagan's filing in the Swiss banks case was
so inadequate that a judge asked him to rewrite it. ... This was an ordinary
man who got swept up in issues that were bigger than he was."
Career
1995 Holocaust lawsuits against Swiss banks
In the 1995, Fagan filed lawsuits against Swiss banks which
had refused to repay money that belonged to Holocaust victims. The banks in
question settled the claims outside of court, resulting in a payout of US$1.25
billion.
According to news reports[6] Ed Fagan even held up the final
formal signing of the German slave labor settlement because he wanted more
money for himself. While several hundred people and German and American
representatives waited, Ed Fagan, still wearing an ABCNEWS 20/20 microphone,
could be heard "haggling over the fees, and then boasting of his
success". He was recorded saying, "I got the legal fees up, ... We
did great, we did great we just got another, we just got some more money.”[6]
Amongst Fagan's many critics was New York University law
professor Burt Neuborne, who had said on record: "We essentially worked
around him, ... I mean, he was, he was there, but, but he played, if I tell you
zero, I mean zero role in developing the legal theory, in presenting the legal
theory, and in participating as a lawyer."[6] Neuborne, a leading human
rights lawyer, believed that it was time to set the record straight:
It didn’t surprise me at the last minute that the only
lawyer, the only lawyer that thought he could hold this deal up would be Ed
Fagan. Because that’s the barometer of how much you care about yourself, and
how much you care about those victims. I think it is appropriate to, to tell
the truth about him. One hundred percent of his activity in this case,
including the press activity, it was designed to get his name there so other
people would sign up with him, so he could get more and more and more and more
people in the fold and then show up in court and say "I am the top lawyer
cause I have got the most clients."[6]
In 1998, Mrs. Gizella Weisshaus, the named plaintiff in the
lawsuit against Swiss banks, opted out of that historic settlement because she
felt that her attorneys were more interested in paying themselves millions of
dollars, even before some of the survivors had received any money. On April 8,
1998 Mrs. Gizella Weisshauss filed an attorney ethics complaint, claiming that
Edward D. Fagan, her lawyer at the time, held back $82,583.04 belonging to her
from the estate of her deceased cousin Jack Oestreicher. Hal R. Lieberman, Esq.
from Departmental Disciplinary Committee, Supreme Court, Appellate Division,
responded on May 6, 1998, that in this "ongoing criminal proceeding"
the outcome of the disciplinary investigation should be awaited.[7]
In 2000, Fagan represented some 82,000 Holocaust victims and
family members (many of whom later accused him of negligence), suing governments
and companies in Germany and Austria based on the Alien Tort Claims Act.
2002 slavery class action lawsuit
In April 2002 Ed Fagan filed a class action lawsuit against
eighteen companies, including FleetBoston, CSX Corporation, Aetna, Union Pacific
Railroad, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company and Lehman Brothers, accusing the
companies to have "unjustly enriched (themselves) through profits earned
either directly or indirectly from the Trans-Atlantic slave trade and slavery
between 1619 and 1865, as well as post-Emancipation slavery through the
1960s". In January 2004 Judge Charles R Norgle dismissed the lawsuit
because Fagan failed to establish a clear link between plaintiffs and the
companies.[8]
2002 Apartheid lawsuit against Swiss and US banks
According to news reports by CNN, the "maverick
lawyer" attempted to file a $50 billion class action lawsuit against Swiss
UBS and Credit Suisse and U.S. based Citicorp Inc. for providing funds to the
South African apartheid government during 1985 and 1993. Swiss Foreign Ministry
spokesman Ruedi Christen dismissed the lawsuit with the following words:
"It's another unjust attack against Switzerland," an opinion shared
in Switzerland, where citizens told Fagan to "Go home!" and "Wash
your dirty linen elsewhere", when he held a news conference on Zurich's
Paradeplatz, home of the two biggest banks of Switzerland: Credit Suisse and
UBS.[9]
2003 Apartheid lawsuit against Anglo American
In 2003 Fagan and South African law firm Ngcebetsha Madlanga
Attorneys attempted to sue Anglo American, the word's second-biggest mining
company, diamond producer De Beers, Sasol Ltd., which supplies about 44 percent
of South Africa's motor fuel, and Fluor Corporation, a California-based
engineering company, claiming that the companies profited from South Africa's
racial discrimination policies that ended in 1994.[10][11] The claims were
dismissed by a federal district judge in November 2004, Fagan was not allowed
to represent the case.[12]
2004 Artwork lawsuit against Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG
In 2004, Fagan filed a federal lawsuit in Manhattan for a
non-existent group called the Association of Holocaust Victims for Restitution
of Artwork & Masterpieces (AHVRAM) against Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG
and other European corporate, governmental and financial institutions for $6.8
billion.[13] The lawsuit alleged the theft of artworks and other property
during World War II's Holocaust, but was dismissed by US District Court Judge
Shirley Wohl Kram on Aug. 19, 2005, because Fagan failed to state any basis for
federal court jurisdiction of the "frivolous" and "bad
faith" lawsuit. Kram noted that the "plaintiff organization AHVRAM
did not exist," Fagan's "lack of preparation and professionalism, his
'glaringly inadequate filings,' and the fact that he deceived the
court".[14] Fagan's failure to pay the more than $350,000 in fines and
litigation costs to the Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG led to his bankruptcy and
disbarment.[2]
2004 slave trade lawsuit against Lloyd's of London
Claiming that the descendants of black American slaves still
suffer, Fagan sued the UK's oldest insurance market Lloyd's of London for
insuring ships used in the slave trade in the 1700-1800s. Fagan's interest in
financial compensation was immediately criticized by Kofi Mawuli Klu, the Chair
of the Pan-Afrikan Taskforce for Internationalist Dialogue (PATFID); the
Anti-Slavery Abolitionist Heritage Learning movement and member of the
Pan-Afrikan Reparations Coalition in Europe (PARCOE): "We have to make
sure that the focus does not shift from the broad, deeper understanding of
reparations to just one of financial compensation, ... We see action for
reparations more as an educational issue of bringing masses of people into the
fight against racism."[15]
2005 Kaprun disaster lawsuit
Fagan attempted to represent the plaintiffs in a suit
brought by relatives of six Americans who died in mountain railway disaster in
Kaprun, Austria, which killed 155 people, but in August 2007, Southern District
of New York Judge Shira Scheindlin disqualified Fagan from representing the
plaintiffs, after noting that Fagan, who had filed for personal bankruptcy, had
a personal interest in the litigation's outcome and made false representations
to the court. Scheindlin slapped the attorney with a $5,000 fine.[2] Fagan
continues to seek winnings [2009] in this case with a former partner in the
case that through their failed Florida partnership representing victims in the
Louis J Pearlman fraud, allowed Fagan to vindictively sell his services to
victims of that fraud. Fagan eventually deserted these clients after severely
hurting their chances of any recovery due to his obstructionist and
disingenuous involvement in their cases.
2005 Indian Ocean
tsunami victims lawsuit
In 2005, he initiated
a lawsuit on behalf of 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake victims. The lawsuit was
directed against the Thai government, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration and the French hotel group Sofitel, blaming them for insufficient
quake and tsunami warnings.[16]
2006 Borat lawsuit
In 2006, Fagan initiated legal proceedings, suing the makers
of the film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious
Nation of Kazakhstan for $30 million damages, on behalf of two inhabitants of
the Romanian village of Glod, Dâmbovita for human rights violations. He planned
to submit lawsuits in New York and Florida state courts, as well as in
Frankfurt, Germany.[17] Fagan said that he hoped to "teach Hollywood a
very expensive lesson." The lawsuit was thrown out by US District Judge
Loretta Preska in a hearing in early December 2006 on the grounds that the
charges were too vague to stand up in court. Fagan planned to refile.[18]
Malpractice
Fagan has been accused of abandoning personal injury clients
in favor of the more lucrative Holocaust reparations cases. One personal injury
client sued Fagan, and won a $3.2 million malpractice award.[19] Fagan has been
accused of having wasted over $500,000 of his clients' money.[20]
In 1998 Judge Sterling Johnson Jr. of Federal District Court
dismissed the federal lawsuit of Mr. Ortiz, noting that Mr. Fagan, his
attorney, had "failed to prosecute" it for three years and had
ignored court orders. The lawsuit of Mr. Ortiz, then a 49-year-old truck driver
involved in a traffic accident, started in 1994, when Mr. Fagan filed a $35
million lawsuit on his behalf in federal court in Brooklyn and State Supreme
Court, but Fagan failed to pursue the case after 1996. After that Fagan did not
see, visit, or speak with his client.[5]
In another case Mr. Fagan failed to submit a claim for Mr.
Tom Giron to a New York state fund that compensates victims of uninsured
motorists. Mr Giron was struck and severely injured in 1992 by a car reported
stolen, but did not receive any compensation, because, according to Jeffrey
Rubinton, the fund's president, a claim was never filed and "its records
showed that such an action had not been pursued and that the statute of
limitations on making one had long expired."[5] Another client, Offer
Salmoni, won a $167,000 malpractice judgment against Mr. Fagan, because Mr.
Fagan repeatedly failed to make court appearances in his eviction case, and so
the statute of limitations expired without refiling.[5]
New Jersey ethics officials filed a misconduct complaint
before a grievance committee against Mr. Fagan on behalf of Diane Gibbons,
another former client, who complained that Mr. Fagan failed to submit required
papers in her personal injury case, leading to its dismissal.[5] During the
proceedings Fagan was forced to admit that he failed to withdraw from suits
that he could not pursue, excusing himself with the words: "I was in over
my head a lot of the time."[5]
Sexual misconduct investigation
The Jewish Daily The Forward reported in October 2005[21]
that Ed Fagan was engaged in a legal investigation about published accusations
and sexual contacts with underage prostitutes in Austria. Austrian
print[22][23] and broadcast media[24][25] reported that the state prosecutor in
Vienna is looking into Fagan's contact with a prostitution ring that involved
underage girls from Eastern Europe. Fagan confirmed the sexual contacts with a
17-year-old Lithuanian prostitute named Inga but claims that he believed the
prostitute to be at least 22 years old.[21] Although prostitution is regulated
in Austria, it is still illegal to knowingly hire a prostitute under the age of
18. The maximum sentence, according to § 207b (Sexual abuses of adolescents) of
the Austrian Strafgesetzbuch (Criminal law) is 3 years of imprisonment.[26]
Disbarment in New Jersey and New York
In 2005 Fagan became the subject of an ethics investigation
by the New Jersey Office of Attorney Ethics, accusing him of "knowing
misappropriation" of client money.[27][28] On April 2, 2007, Appellate
Division, 1st Department held that Fagan had "violated a number of
disciplinary rules prohibiting an attorney from disregarding a court's rulings,
engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation or deceit,
and acquiring a proprietary interest in the subject of the litigation."[2]
On December 11, 2008, in the "Matter of Edward D.
Fagan, M-2732, M-3148, M-3193",[1] a unanimous panel of the Appellate
Division, 1st Department, ruled, that Fagan's failure to pay sanctions and
money owed to Bank Austria, his "pattern of prior sanctions for
unprofessional conduct" and his "lack of contrition" made him
unfit to practice law.[2] Fagans will be "stricken from the roll of
attorneys and counselors-at-law in the State of New York."[1] The following
day, Fagan was disbarred in New York for failing to pay a court fine and fees
due to Bank Austria.[2]
Following the 2008 recommendation of a special ethics master
the state disciplinary board of New Jersey decided in January 2009, that Fagan
should be disbarred and banned from practicing in the state because he
misappropriated hundreds of thousands of dollars entrusted to him by Holocaust
survivors.[3]
Bankruptcy
Fagan's finances and businesses started to collapse in the
1990s. According to public records and newspaper articles[5] Fagan began to owe
large amounts of federal income taxes. In 1996 the Nynex Corporation filed a
$228,000 lawsuit against Odyssoe in a New Jersey court for unpaid
advertisements services, a bill that was, according to a spokeswoman for
Verizon, the successor to Nynex, not even paid in 2000.[5] Facing an eviction
proceeding for unpaid rent, Fagan was forced in 1997 to abandon his offices and
rent space from a law firm in the World Trade Center.[5]
In 2005 Fagan had 28 outstanding court awards and liens of
more than $4 million against him and his firm, Fagan & Associates,
including three from clients who alleged that he neglected their cases.[29] In
February 2007 he filed for protection under federal bankruptcy laws in Tampa, Florida.
Court documents are said to show that he owes about $9.4 million to
creditors.[30]
See also
List of disbarments in the United States
Christoph Meili
Holocaust industry
References
^ Jump up to: a b c Matter of Edward D. Fagan, M-2732,
M-3148, M-3193[permanent dead link]. Supreme Court. Appellate Division. First
Judicial Department. Retrieved on October 15, 2009
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g Walder, Noeleen G. (December 12,
2008). "Lawyer Disbarred for Failing to Pay Sanctions, Fees in Holocaust
Case". New York Law Journal; retrieved October 15, 2009.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Fuchs, Mary (June 24, 2009).
"Lawyer Edward Fagan is disbarred in N.J. for misusing Holocaust victims'
funds". New Jersey Real-Time News; retrieved October 14, 2009.
Jump up ^ Rostron, Bryan (August 12, 2002). "The
business of apartheid". New Statesman. Retrieved on January 31, 2010.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e f g h i j Meier, Barry (September 8,
2000). "An Avengers Path: A Special report.; Lawyer in Holocaust Case
Faces Litany of Complaints". New York Times. Retrieved on October 15,
2009.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Ross, Brian (September 8, 2000).
"Holocaust Claims Lawyer Accused". ABCNEWS. Retrieved on October 15,
2009.
Jump up ^ Original Letters. Fagan. Lieberman. Re: Attorney
Ethics Complaint by Gizella Weisshauss. "Archived copy". Archived
from the original on 2011-05-16. Retrieved 2009-02-09.
Jump up ^ Kleiderman, Alex (August 23, 2004). "The
vexed question of paying for slavery". BBC. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ "Swiss jeer apartheid claim lawyer".
CNN, June 17, 2002. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ "Workers Sue Companies Over Apartheid".
New York Times, April 6, 2003. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ Shah, Saeed (April 5, 2003). "South African
mining giants face $6bn law suit". The Independent. Retrieved on October
15, 2009.
Jump up ^ Schonbrun DeSimone Seplow Harris & Hoffman
LLP. Apartheid Case. Documents[permanent dead link]. 2007. Retrieved on October
15, 2009.
Jump up ^ Association of Holocaust Victims for Restitution
of Artwork & Masterpieces, a/k/a "AHVRAM" v. Bank Austria
Creditanstalt, No. 04 Civ. 3600.
Jump up ^ Maull, Samuel. Lawyer for Holocaust victims
disbarred. The Associated Press. November 12, 2008.
Jump up ^ "Slave descendants to sue Lloyd's". BBC
News, March 29, 2004. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ Australian Associated Press. "Victims to sue
over Asian tsunami". The Sydney Morning Herald, March 6, 2005. Archived
November 4, 2012, at the Wayback Machine.
Jump up ^ Pancevski, Bojan (November 20, 2006).
"Villagers to sue 'Borat'". LA Times. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ Associated Press (December 5, 2006). "NYC
Judge Questions Viability Of Villagers' 'Borat' Lawsuit". abclocal.go.com.
Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ Lin Anthony (August 12, 2004). "Personal
Injury Client Wins Malpractice Award Against Holocaust Victims' Lawyer" at
the Wayback Machine (archived September 30, 2007). New York Law Journal.
archived from the original on September 30, 2007.
Jump up ^ "Holocaust-Entschädigung: Schwere Vorwürfe
gegen Star-Anwalt Fagan". Der Spiegel, February 18, 2005.
^ Jump up to: a b Popper, Nathaniel (October 7, 2005).
"Holocaust Lawyer Fights Accusation He Hired Underage Austrian
Hooker" at the Wayback Machine (archived June 22, 2008). The Forward.
Archived from the original on June 22, 2008.
Jump up ^ Klenk, Florian (September 9, 2005). "Mit
Vollendung? Die Callgirlaffäre erreicht das Parlamen Archived 2008-03-21 at the
Wayback Machine. (German)". Der Falter. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ Nachrichten, Salzburger (September 4, 2005).
"Fagan soll unter Freiern in Callgirl-Affäre sein" (German).
Salzburger Nachrichten. Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ "Callgirl-Ring: Ed Fagan weist Vorwürfe
zurück" (German). Österreichischer Rundfunk, September 4, 2005. Retrieved
on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ "Callgirl-Ring: Prominenten Freiern drohen
Ermittlungen" (German). Österreichischer Rundfunk, August 31, 2005.
Retrieved on October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ "§ 207b Sexueller Missbrauch von Jugendlichen
Archived 2006-05-01 at the Wayback Machine.". Strafgesetzbuch (StGB):
Besonderer Teil: Zehnter Abschnitt (German). University Salzburg. Retrieved on
October 15, 2009.
Jump up ^ Covaleski, John (January 20, 2005). "Ethics
Charges Leveled at Lawyer Who Fostered Holocaust Settlement" at the
Wayback Machine (archived September 30, 2007). New Jersey Law Journal. Archived
from the original on September 30, 2007.
Jump up ^ "Lawyer's 'hero' image tarnished".
Archived 2012-07-24 at Archive.is
Jump up ^ Covaleski, John (January 20, 2005). "Ethics
Charges Leveled at Lawyer Who Fostered Holocaust Settlement." New Jersey
Law Journal.
Jump up ^ Weimar, Carrie (March 22, 2007). "Holocaust
lawyer eyes bankruptcy". St. Petersburg Times. Retrieved on October 15,
2009.
External links[edit]
Case of Ed Fagan
Holocaust Lawyer Fights Accusation He Hired Underage
Austrian Hooker
Con Man and Snake Oil Salesman Ed Fagan Tries To Shut Down
Parentadvocates.org. Lewenstein Serves Subpoena on Gizella Weisshaus
This page was last edited on 22 December 2017, at 18:33.
###
Schwere Vorwürfe gegen
Star-Anwalt Fagan
Der US-Anwalt Ed Fagan, bekannt durch die
Holocaust-Verfahren gegen Schweizer Banken, plant eine neue Milliardenklage -
im Namen der Tsunami-Opfer. Doch jetzt braucht er selbst einen Rechtsbeistand:
Die Justizaufsicht wirft ihm vor, mehr als eine halbe Million Dollar veruntreut
zu haben.
Von Marc Pitzke, New York
Freitag, 18.02.2005
Der Rächer der
Betrogenen am Pranger
New York - Gizella Weisshaus gibt nicht auf. Die
Auschwitz-Überlebende sitzt in ihrer düsteren Wohnstube im ersten Stock eines
Altbaus in Brooklyn, rings um sich zahllose Papiere, Dokumente, vergilbte
Fotos. Am Telefon hat sie einen Reporter, unten an der Tür klingelt gerade ein
britisches Kamerateam. "Prima", sagt Weisshaus. "Nicht locker
lassen."
Seit fast zehn Jahren kämpft Weisshaus, 75, um ihr Recht -
bisher vergebens. 1996 trat sie die Verfahrenswelle gegen die Schweizer
Großbanken los, um die Freigabe der seit der Nazi-Zeit eingefrorenen jüdischen
Konten zu erzwingen. Doch obwohl die Banken am Ende 1,25 Milliarden Dollar in
einen Holocaust-Fonds zahlten, wartet die Urklägerin Weisshaus bis heute auf
ihr Geld. "Ich habe bislang keinen Cent aus dem Fonds gesehen", klagt
sie im Gespräch mit SPIEGEL ONLINE. "Ganz im Gegenteil: Ich habe kräftig
draufgezahlt."
Dafür macht Weisshaus hauptsächlich einen Mann
verantwortlich: Ed Fagan, ihren damaligen Rechtsanwalt, der durch die
Konten-Affäre weltweiten Ruhm als Advokat der Armen erlangte. "Fagan hat
mich ausgenutzt, mein Geld gestohlen, mir das Messer in den Rücken
gestochen", behauptet Weisshaus mit brüchiger Stimme. "Er ist ein
Betrüger und ein Gauner."
Beißende Ironie
So was wäre leicht als Bitterkeit einer greisen Dame
abzutun, der viel Unrecht geschehen ist. Doch Weisshaus steht nicht alleine:
Die oberste Justizaufsicht des Bundesstaats New Jersey, in dem Fagan gemeldet
ist, hat jetzt ein formelles Ethik-Beschwerdeverfahren gegen Fagan eingeleitet
- wegen des Vorwurfs, Klientengelder in Höhe von über einer halben Million
Dollar veruntreut zu haben. Damit droht ihm der Entzug der Anwaltsgenehmigung.
Das Timing ist pikant: Gerade erst hat "der
gefürchteste Sammelkläger der Welt" ("Zeit") selbst ein neues
Milliardenverfahren angekündigt - im Namen der Tsunami-Opfer. Er wolle klären,
ob die verheerenden Folgen der Tragödie auf fehlerhaftes, wenn nicht gar
vorsätzliches Handeln bei den Warnbehörden und den betroffenen Hotels
zurückzuführen sei.
Eine Geschichte von beißender Ironie also: der Rächer der
Betrogenen, nun seinerseits am Pranger. "Das Verhalten des Beklagten
entspricht einer vorsätzlichen Veruntreuung von Vermögensgeldern", heißt
es in der achtseitigen, bereits im Dezember verfassten Beschwerde des
Ethikausschusses am Obersten Gerichtshof von New Jersey, die der Ausschuss SPIEGEL
ONLINE auf Anfrage übermittelte. "Deshalb muss der Beklagte
disziplinarrechtlich bestraft werden." Diese Beschuldigungen haben
wesentlich mehr Gewicht als die einer Privatperson, da sie direkt von der
obersten Justizinstanz kommen.
"Der ist abgetaucht"
Fagan hat auf die Beschwerde, die ihm zum Jahresanfang per
Einschreiben zugestellt wurde und der Beginn eines offiziellen
Disziplinarverfahrens ist, nach Angaben einer Justizsprecherin bisher nicht
reagiert. Auch jüngste Versuche von Reportern, ihn in den USA aufzuspüren,
blieben fruchtlos. Obwohl Fagan neulich erst an einer Pressekonferenz zu der
Tsunami-Klage teilnahm - in Wien.
Anrufe unter seinen bekannten Büro- und Privatnummern in New
Jersey gehen ins Leere. Seine E-Mail-Adresse existiert nicht mehr. Auf seinem
Handy meldete sich gestern eine Frau: "Falsch verbunden." Abbott
Koloff, ein Reporter der Lokalzeitung "Daily Record", berichtet, er
habe zweimal versucht, Fagan in seiner Mietwohnung aufzusuchen, doch nie
jemanden dort angetroffen und deshalb Nachrichten im Briefkasten hinterlassen.
"Er hat nie geantwortet", sagte er zu SPIEGEL ONLINE.
Nur die Wochenzeitung "Jewish Week" zitierte Fagan
kurz, als die Vorwürfe hochkochten: "Sobald ich die Informationen sehe,
werde ich Rechtsbeistand suchen und Stellung nehmen." Dass er dabei von
"Rechtsbeistand" sprach, deutet darauf hin, dass ihm der Ernst der
Lage bewusst ist. Doch das war vor sechs Wochen. Gizella Weisshaus sagt:
"Der ist abgetaucht."
Es ist nicht das erste Mal, dass Fagan, 52, ins Kreuzfeuer
der Kritik gerät. Seit Jahren schon werfen frühere Klienten und Kollegen dem
kameraverliebten Juristen fragwürdiges Tun vor. Es ist allerdings das erste
Mal, dass sich die höchstrichterliche Disziplinarstelle derart aggressiv
einschaltet.
Vor dem Tod noch zugeflüstert
Aktenzeichen XIV-00-135E: Auf den Penny genau listet die
Anzeige des Ethikausschusses, des Aufsichtsgremiums für Juristen in New Jersey,
die Anschuldigungen gegen den gebürtigen Texaner auf. So habe er vom
Treuhandkonto seiner früheren Klientin Estelle Sapir, einer der ersten
Holocaust-Klägerinnen, 427.500 Dollar auf sein eigenes Geschäftskonto
überwiesen, obwohl er wusste, dass er dazu "nicht autorisiert"
gewesen sei. Die fragile Gestalt Sapirs, die der Senator Alfonso d'Amato damals
auf Pressekonferenzen vorführte, wurde zur Personifierung des Holocaust-Leids.
Sie starb nach Angaben ihrer Angehörigen im April 1999 bettelarm.
Eine weitere jüdische Klientin soll Fagan nach Ermittlungen
des Gerichts um 82.582 Dollar erleichtert haben. Ihr Name: Gizella Weisshaus.
Weisshaus will Fagan 1996 überhaupt erst auf die Idee
gebracht haben, die Schweizer Banken zu verklagen. Ihre Eltern, ihre drei
Brüder und ihre drei Schwestern waren in Auschwitz umgekommen. Vor dem Tod
hatte ihr der Vater aber noch zugeflüstert, dass sein gesamtes Besitztum auf
einem Konto in der Schweiz liege. Jahrzehnte lang hatte die Bank Weisshaus
Zugang zu dem Konto verweigert.
"Die Bösewichter der Welt aufspüren"
Weisshaus' Fall wurde der Anstoß für einen weltweiten
Skandal. Zehntausende schlossen sich der Sammelklage an. Später verklagte Fagan
auch deutsche Industriekonzerne wegen der NS-Zwangsarbeit. Insgesamt erstritten
die Opfer so weit über sechs Milliarden Dollar. "Auf der Welt wimmelt es
von Bösewichtern", prahlte er auf dem Höhepunkt der Klagewelle in der
"New York Times". "Wir müssen sie aufspüren."
Noch im selben Jahr, als die Schweiz-Affäre losging, hatte
Weisshaus Fagan mit der treuhänderischen Verwaltung des Erbes eines
verstorbenen Cousins beauftragt, das mehr als 82.500 Dollar betrug. Nicht mal
vier Wochen später, so die jetztige Beschwerde, habe Fagan 40.000 Dollar davon
auf sein eigenes Konto überwiesen. Ende 1997 seien auf dem Weisshaus-Konto nur
noch 100 Dollar gewesen. Im Jahr darauf habe es "gar kein Guthaben"
mehr aufgewiesen. Das Geld habe Fagan unter anderem benutzt, um eigene Schulden
zu begleichen.
Eine Sprecherin der Erben Sapirs sagte der "Jewish
Week", sie hoffe, dass Fagan nun "das Richtige für jeden tut, falls
er jemandem in der Familie Geld schuldet". Diese Sache habe ihnen großen
"emotionalen Stress bereitet".
Tsunami-Klage auf Hochtouren
"Ich habe ihm vertraut", sagt Weisshaus.
"Stattdessen wurde mir alles weggenommen." Nach Fagans Abgang habe
sie "ganz allein" um ihren Anteil am Holocaust-Fonds gekämpft. Doch
um die Auszahlungsmodalitäten wird bis heute gestritten; erst 2800 Berechtigte
haben insgesamt 217 Millionen Dollar erhalten, also im Schnitt je 77.500
Dollar. Weisshaus ist nicht darunter. Um ihre Unkosten zu decken, sagt die
Frau, habe sie eine Immobilie und die Lebensversicherung ihres Mannes verkauft.
Auch alte Freunde reagieren empfindlich auf den Namen Fagan:
"Was mich angeht", sagte sein Ex-Partner Burt Neuborne dem
"Daily Record", "so will ich den Namen des Kerls nie wieder
hören."
Die Vorbereitungen der Tsunami-Klage laufen unterdessen auf
Hochtouren. Der Wiener Rechtsanwalt Podovsovnik und sein Kärntner Kollege
Hasslacher, die auf eine schriftliche Anfrage nach dem Verbleib Fagans nicht
reagierten, haben dazu eine eigene Website eingerichtet. Über die können
Tsunami-Opfer mit ihnen Kontakt aufnehmen, um sich an einem künftigen
Massenverfahren zu beteiligen. Das "Beitrittsformular" enthält, neben
der Frage nach "Name/Geburtsdatum des/der Verstorbenen", auch ein
Statement Fagans: "Nichts wird zurückbringen, was den Opfern genommen
wurde. Nichts kann die Uhr zurückdrehen, damit sie nicht erleiden müssen, was
sie durchgemacht haben."
PORTRÄT
Unser liebstes Feindbild
Obwohl Ed Fagan seine Anwaltslizenz los ist, klagt er schon
wieder gegen Schweizer Banken.
Thomas Knellwolf, 16.01.2013
Manchmal wiederholt sich die Zeitgeschichte. Ab und zu
steckt dann Ed Fagan als treibende, weil umtriebige Kraft dahinter. Der
60-jährige Amerikaner tut nun wieder, wofür er in der zweiten Hälfte der
90er-Jahre in der Schweiz bekannt wurde. Damals hatte er für Holocaust-Opfer
gegen hiesige Banken geklagt. 1998 endeten die Auseinandersetzungen um die
nachrichtenlosen Vermögen mit einem Vergleich. Die Grossbanken zahlten 1,25
Milliarden. Fagan war mit seinen lauten Auftritten zum Feindbild Nummer 1 nicht
nur der schweizerischen Aktivdienstgeneration geworden.
Vor zehn Jahren dann machte er sich nicht gerade beliebter,
als er auf dem Zürcher Paradeplatz mit Opfern der südafrikanischen Apartheid
eine Pressekonferenz abhalten wollte. Vornehmlich Senioren protestierten. Ihre
Parolen wie «Abfahren! Landesverbot!», «Go home!» und weniger Druckreifes,
darunter Antisemitisches, verhinderten den Auftritt.
Jetzt ist Edward Davis Fagan wieder in Sachen Schweizer
Finanzplatz aktiv geworden. Er hat vor drei Wochen in Washington eine Klage
gegen die Credit Suisse, die UBS, die Schweizerische Bankiervereinigung und die
Eidgenossenschaft eingereicht. Die «Tribune de Genève» und deren Partnerzeitung
«24 heures» berichteten gestern detailliert darüber. Erneut geht es um Vermögen
von Naziopfern.
Am Tiefpunkt
Doch diesmal ist die Ausgangslage eine ganz andere. Der
Vergleich von 1998 ermöglicht es den Grossbanken, nun zu argumentieren, alles
sei untersucht und abgegolten. Vor allem aber steht Ed Fagan an einem anderen
Punkt in seinem Leben. An einem Tiefpunkt. Der 60-Jährige kann nicht mehr als
Anwalt agieren, weil ihm seine Lizenz entzogen worden ist. Er musste deshalb
100 Dollar deponieren, um sich als Kläger dem Begehren von Nachkommen von
Holocaust-Opfern anzuschliessen. Fagan sagt, er habe sich die Rechte gekauft,
«um Resultate zu bekommen und eine Hommage an Holocaust-Opfer». Es gehe ihm, so
beteuert er, um «Gerechtigkeit».
Unerwähnt lässt Fagan, dass er seine Berufszulassung auch
deshalb verloren hat, weil es ein Gericht in New Jersey 2009 als erwiesen
ansah, dass er zwei Klientinnen, jüdische Überlebende des Völkermords der
Nationalsozialisten, um rund 350'000 Dollar betrogen hatte. Zuletzt tauchte
Fagan fast nur noch in «Was macht eigentlich ...?»-Texten auf. Dort wurde dann
über Schulden, Streit und eine Scheidung sowie darüber berichtet, dass Fagan
Roma vertrat, die gegen die Produzenten der Filmkomödie «Borat» prozessierten.
Fagans Leben besteht aus Klagen
Doch jetzt ist der gebürtige Texaner, der in jungen Jahren
nach Israel zog und die Truppen im Jom-Kippur-Krieg mit dem Banjo unterhielt,
zurück im Geschäft. So klagte er jüngst auch gegen die Vereinigten Staaten von
Amerika, gegen den tschechischen Staat oder gegen das European Shoah Legacy
Institute in Prag.
Ed Fagans Leben
besteht aus Klagen. Die Aussichten auf einen Erfolg vor Gericht oder einen
Vergleich sind gering. Diese Erfahrung teilen Opfer des Tsunami in Südostasien
oder von japanischen Verbrechen im Zweiten Weltkrieg mit Betroffenen von
Rinderwahnsinn oder von einem tschechischen Atomkraftwerk, die Fagan vertrat. Und es wäre keine Überraschung,
wenn auch die neue Klage gegen Schweizer Banken und den Staat scheitern würde.
Die Ansprüche sind bereits einmal unabhängig geprüft und abgewiesen worden.
(Tages-Anzeiger)
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen