After the horrendous ordeal in Denmark, many people, lawyers, doctors and friends have asked me why I did not go after the Danish authorities making them pay compensation for all the damages and losses. I always told people that it would be too traumatic for me to revisit all this; moreover, you can’t fight City Hall.
I did offer a reward for information as to the whole political case and all the evil, but again this I never really saw to, I enjoyed a good life with my soulmate and all the events in Denmark was most negative for me to deal with. I did witness the birth of the Internet in early 1990s, walked through the market experiences of the Dot-com bubble, the Enron scandal, the Worldcom fraud, the Washington Mutual and worst for me personally the Refco scandal in 2005, that gave me a big financial loss. But all this did not matter as I had love and my soulmate by my side. We daily, for many years, woke to a beautiful life in paradise. Nothing in life ever last, so one day, after 18 years it all stopped.
During the years 2002-2006, I did work on a book about my life, mostly about my recent experience in Westminster, witnessing systemic political corruption, but also about my ordeal in Denmark.
I was truly criminalised by the Danish authorities’ and media.
My health has dominated me in the last years since the loss of my soul mate in 2008, specific illness caused by my long solitary confinement in Denmark all these years ago.
A Case In England
The case in England started in 2006 and was initially a simple case of blackmail, greed and jealousy, from my side total neglect, due to my illness. However, it becomes a back-stapping and payback for many, my many enemies, who saw an opportunity to get me for god. However, it was Denmark that provided the ammunition in using a material that was 28 years old, mostly fabricated by the Bagmandspolitiet and the Danish Courts.
Denmark gave the British the ammunition, to prosecute me by an in-absentia trial, simply blacken and disgrace my character in front of 12-member jury. That was easy when the judge acted as the second prosecutor and the defendant was not there. Neither any defence lawyers to question the selected witnesses, which was led by the prosecution. No defence lawyers, defence documentation or witnesses.
The Classic Story of Jealousy and Greed
As to the background of this “criminal” case, it is the old story of jealousy and greed. Jealousy by an old woman, at the time in her late 80s, who slowly became a corps from alcohol abuse, a woman I briefly had an affair with 20 years earlier. The greed from her single child, a son in his mid-sixties, who had all his life lived on his mother’s money, being a drug addict. As to the blackmail, it goes back to 1987, when I again met the woman (Pamela Schutzmann) at the Royal Academy in London; I had known Pamela after meeting her and her husband in 1976. We were skiing in Arosa, I was with my wife and sons and a friend, a senior US diplomat Edward Waltmann, who had his wife and two daughters along.
The neglect goes back to the time that my soulmate in life, Romana, was dying and fighting for the last months of her life, needing me by her side. I simply did not have the mind at the time to deal with such outrageous claim by someone who had blackmailed me for years and who both Romana and I had helped so much through many years. First by getting her property in Barbados back, after she had given it to her 20 years plus younger boyfriend. Later we had to practical supervise Pamela daily through 10 years, as she regularly fell down the stairs drunk or ended up someplace drunk. Despite this, my soulmate looked after her as her “English” mother and even brought Pamela into our own family and group of friends.
My soulmate Romana died in 2008 and my life becomes so black and negative that I only wanted to leave this life. Somehow, I did not die and the dark winter night I passed through has given me the strength to go on. In addition, my many beautiful grandchildren have given me the strength to go on fighting for justice.
I still live with the deep scars from my solitary confinement in Denmark, they will never leave me, and the experience is implanted in my soul. Despite all this, I maintain that I have had a good life, as I have been privileged to much love and experience. I have also been blessed by having healthy sons and grandchildren, all enjoying a privileged life, and living all over the world.
What really makes me fight for justice, is the Danish authorities conspiracy together with the British, with an in-absentia trial in UK, leaving me to rot for years.
The most choking and deplorable revenge by the Danish Ministry of Justice
My Arrest in London
On the 26th of August 2006, I flew to London, from our home in the South of France, for my normal monthly 24 hours visit. I had a luncheon appointment and wanted to visit a friend in hospital and thereafter see a sick old lady, Pamela Schutzmann, to give her cash and advice, as I acted as her sole trustee with the sole power of attorney.
After a very satisfactory lunch at White’s Club in St. James’s, I went to visit my Danish friend for 35 years, John Jensen, at Wellington Hospital. Considering I stayed longer with him and was running later, I telephoned Pamela and suggested we make dinner together, something she agreed with, although she sounded odd, I thought she, as usual, had drunk too much.
Arriving at her property in Hampstead, North London, I was met by two police officers, telling me that I was under arrest. It came like a bolt of lightning from the sky, as I had absolutely no knowledge as to why. Asking why, I was told that Pamela’s 67 years old, only son, a drug abuser all his life, had contacted the police earlier that morning and accused me of defrauding his mother.
Seeing Pamela in her doorway, I was shocked, since I had known her since 1976 and had acted as her trustee for many years. She had deteriorated badly in the last years, due to a lifelong abuse of alcohol with a full-blown psychological disorder; alcohol’s effects on her had cause psychological dysfunction to develop for years. Even reaching, at the time, the age of 87 years, she lived with chronic Korsakoff’s psychosis symptoms with a memory problem, forgetfulness and even paranoia and alcoholic neuropathy.
At the same time of my arrest, the police search my apartment in Portman Square, seizing a large number of papers and my laptop. Among the files on the laptop and documentation was a draft to a book, I had been working on for some time.
The book was about my experiences, as chairman of The Mayfair Society and the local appointed amenity group for Mayfair, the Residents’ Association of Mayfair. During many years, I had witnessed’s systemic corruption by a local politician and the London police. I helped to expose this corruption very early at Westminster City Council, ultimately leading to the leader of the Council, Lady Porter, running to Israel.
As to the systemic police corruption, many officers had been prosecuted and jailed. All this material in my apartment, no doubt aroused the police interest. My notes for the book included my experience with all the injustice in Denmark, with a huge amount of material of the case at the ECHR in Strasbourg.
It was a low-rank police detective Mark Loftus, who arrested me, he showed aggressive bias against me, I first thought, because of his name it was someone related to a property developer who I had fought at Westminster Council planning. Not only this aggression against me but worst DC Loftus showed he did not understand my relationship with Pamela, who my partner-in-life called her English mother, making Pamela be part of our family for years.
I was taken to Holborn police station, where I was told that I was accused of defrauding Pamela for millions, stealing her property and arranging a robbery at my villa in South of France, the year earlier. All complete untrue and most outrageous. All rubbish and just simply stupid, however, such accusation was so overwhelming that it caused me to collapse with bad pain in my left arm and chest pains and a doctor was called. Since, the police did not like what his diagnose and advice as to me, another doctor was called. This doctor confirmed what the first doctor had advised that I should be taken to the hospital immediately.
After spending the night in the hospital and released on police bail, the doctors at the hospital told me to see immediately our doctor in London, which, I intended to do.
Since it was early morning, I went first for breakfast at The Connaught in Mayfair to recover a little after the ordeal. Considering that I felt bad and my doctor was not in his office that day, and in the country, I stayed at the hotel for lunch, after which the manager suggested I had better stay at the hotel overnight, although, my apartment was a close bye.
After having a bad night, I left the hotel in the morning walking to our apartment, just before reaching the place; I felt terrible and just made it across the pavement into the reception of the apartment building where I collapsed. The concierges called an ambulance, which took me to St. Mary’s hospital close by in Paddington.
I stayed in the hospital’s special coronary units for a week, having a comprehensive examination and test, leaving, I was told that I was not allowed to fly home. Therefore, I took the train back to the South of France together with my partner-in-life, Romana, who had flown to London upon my arrest.
Arriving home, I shortly after went into the Princess Grace hospital in Monaco for some days and I become under a strict regime of treatment by our doctor Philippe Scemama.
Considering, I found the allegation in London outrageous and totally without merits, I offered to step down as a trustee and hand everything over to Pamela Schutzmann and her lawyers. My lawyer confirmed this in September to the police; apparently, the police ignored this, as obviously, they wanted a case. Further, when lawyers got involved on my side, they advised against this action, since I had done nothing wrong and should remain, unless, the police would drop the case.
My confrontation with the Danish Inquisitorial legal system
My confrontation with the Danish Inquisitorial legal system ended up at the European Court of Human Rights, where Denmark lost their first case. I had not received a fair trial, the foundation of justice.
Article 6 of the Convention is most important, if one do not receive a fair trial, justice could not be considered and any part of the trial, the case, the administrative procedure and indictment must be subjected to questioning.
However, for me at the time Article 3 of the Convention was far more important, because of the torture I was subjected to in my long solitary confinement. Considering I daily lived the deep scars from this torture, I felt, this was the most serious complaint. Although, the Commission pointed out to me that Article 6 was far more serious.
The Danish authorities prevented me from making the most serious complaint about me to the European Commission of Human Right, namely about my 309 days of total solitary confinement, ending in a 55 days hunger strike. This they were able to do as they held all communication with the Commission back for 26 months, something, totally against the Convention itself.
The British authorities were even more calculated by making certain that my Application to the Court of Human Rights would not happen, as to my in-absentia jury trial in London. They deliberately took a laptop (which had taken me 15 months to get from the Ministry of Justice and used at the time for near two years). This laptop had the complete application to ECHR with all the documentation (over 600 pages) in January 2017, only days before the six months limit, imposed by the Convention in Article 35.
The authorities knew, from listening to my telephone conversation with my lawyer and also from the printing, I had done in the prison library, that this application was going to the ECHR in late January 2017. Moreover, I had to file this application by the end of January 2017. My complaint was not alone against the UK but also Germany, who had not complied in a proper way with the European Arrest Warrant.
I should never have been extradited from Germany, the British had even lied to the highest court in Germany the Bundesgerichthof, informing them that I was only subject to a “criminal investigation” in the United Kingdom, not that I already had been given a sentence of ten years from an in-absentia trial. Worse, been without any defence representation in any shape or form. If all this had been known by the Germans, they could not extradite me, since this would be against their own laws.
Considering the Danish consulate in Germany knew about my arrest, it is my contention, that they should have investigated the validity of this European Arrest Warrant, after all, I was old and ill, placed in the prison hospital. I did not receive any help from the Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘adversary’ as ‘one’s opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute’. That definition goes some way to explaining the adversarial legal system in the England and Wales under which, essentially, representatives from each party take opposing positions to debate and argue their case, whilst the Judge’s role is to uphold principles of fairness and equality and to remain neutral until the very end when he gives judgement.
The facts as to my in-absentia in London, a 6 weeks jury trial in 2008-9:
– No defendant present
– No defence representation
– No defence documentation
– No defence witnesses
So no adversary’ as ‘one’s opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute – only the side of the prosecution. According to amicus (see Edward Jenkins QC Submission to the Court), the Court appointed counsel to the Court, the Judge acted as the second prosecutor and all the witnesses had been led. Amicus, Edward Jenkins QC came from the same chamber as the prosecutor. Edward Jenkins also stated in his submission that the trial was against Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. The judge ignored all his submissions, even she had appointed him to advise the Court. Even his submission that the EAW could not be used since I had not received a fair trial.
I had never commented as to the outrageous allegation, nor did I ever see the final indictment, which had been altered during the trial. Anyone would ask a very simple question, “where is justice?”
Until this event, I believed in the British justice system, I could not have been more wrong. Not only has the criminal justice system in the United Kingdom been brought to its knees by funding cuts, but it is also set up in such a way that its mistakes cannot be effectively identified, rectified, or learned from. It takes on average more than 17 years for the state to acknowledge a miscarriage of justice.
I was the sole trustee of Pamela Schutzmann’s foundation in Panama and had the general power of attorney for more than 10 years
In considering the whole case in London, the allegation, indictment and the in-absentia trial, one have to the fundamental understanding that I was the trustee for Pamela Schutzmann’s foundation for many years.
A trust is a legal act by means of which a person, this case Mrs Pamela Schutzmann, (called the settlor) transfers assets to a person called the trustee (me), who will manage or dispose of them in favour of a beneficiary or beneficiaries. The assets of the foundation are legally under the ownership of the trustee, the foundation can purchase and hold any assets of any kind and can enter into any agreement.
The control and administration of the assets in the trust is the power of the trustee. I was the trustee of Pamela Schutzmann foundation, Spazi Foundation in Panama, (see Spazi Foundation Regulation’s dated the 11 January 2005) which through a company Spazi Properties SA held the assets of her home in London, in addition to shares in other companies.
Prior to becoming her trustee, I had two-signed Power of Attorneys, including a so-called General Power with control of all her personal assets
All a Cock and Bull Story
Pamela Schutzmann, a demented woman, at the time in her late 80s, suffering from Korsakoff’s syndrome and advanced dementia, coming up with a cock-and-bull story about my partner-in-life, her son and me, a story of highly dubious validity. Her drug-addicted son, living all his life of his mother’s money, decided one early morning, on August 2006, to call the police accusing my partner and I of stealing his mother’s estate.
For all his adult life, Vivian Schutzmann had been concerned about how to get more money out of his mother, apart from his monthly cash payment. He had heard about the attractive redevelopment plans I had in mind as to his mother’s property and the fact, that one of my sons had just given me one million cash as a present, hoping possibly to blackmail me. Apart from Vivian’s greed, his son Daniel, also a drug addict, who I last saw at the Savoy Hotel snorting a line of coke in the toilet, at his sister’s Fiona’s wedding, wanted more money out of the sick old lady.
Already, back in the early 90s, Vivian tried unsuccessfully, to blackmail his mother, threatening her with reporting her to the fiscal authorities as to her assets abroad if she did not hand over more money to him, he had received several million since his Jewish stepfather died, a stepfather who refused to adopt him. Neither Pamela nor her son was Jewish by birth.
The worst, Pamela Schutzmann went along with all this, making out she was blind and have been for years, despite she was driving up to 2005 her new BMW, a car I purchased in Germany for her a few years earlier. Moreover, she paid over ₤2000 for car insurance a year, just allowing her to drive. Further, Pamela makes out that the more than seven million left in Switzerland at her husband’s death originated from the Holocaust, a total lie. All the money was made by her husband and her during 35 years, by bringing ingot of gold from there jeweller business, in London, to their Swiss bank accounts, avoiding the British fiscal authorities.
The irony, I had years earlier told her what to say if the fiscal authorities ever came to inquire, that they money first appeared after her husband’s death and it was from his Austrian Jewish family. I had gone through this scenario in details with her, after her son’s threatening letters.
Pamela was a good lair and most of the time played ignorantly. Despite, she was responsible for the accounts for decades, in their business, allowing her husband and her to amass a seven million fortune outside the reach of the British tax people. Pamela claimed to the police, after my initial arrest, that she can’t understand accounts and never have been able to. Pamela taught Romana Italian booking and VAT accounting!
Pamela was very devious and constantly lied about her relationship with her more than 20 younger boyfriend John Bishop. She lost more than ₤ 4-5 million during the years with him and she was for certain defrauded by John Bishop. A bankrupt, who now lives in a ₤12-15 million property Valley Springs in Devon and frankly succeeded in outright stealing most of her money.
Every single cent came from Pamela, to buy the Valley Springs Estate, the redevelopment, the antiques and the classic car collection. John Bishop’s and Pamela’s cruises around the world and luxury living for many years, all came from Pamela. I held all the proof of this fraud by John Bishop among my files seized by the police, but all ignored by the police. Just to show one document, ignored by the British police, Pamela wrote a handwritten letter to one of John Bishop’s lawyers in September 1997. John Bishop took advantage of Pamela’s abuse of alcohol and simply stole the property, the cars and valuables.
I sent Pamela to her lawyer
My partner Romana did not want to be co-executor of Pamela’s Will. Romana was concerned after ten years with all Pamela’s scheming and lies. Romana, although thinking about Pamela as her English mother (Romana’s mother was Polish) and always protecting Pamela, Romana could not accepts all her lies, scheming and manipulations. After all, Romana had witnessed all this since 1976 when Pamela used to lie daily to her husband. I did not wish to be her sole executor and suggested that she should take her granddaughter’s husband James as a co-executor.
Pamela did not want to have a lawyer, partly, because she never wanted to pay for lawyers, I had recommended for her to appoint her personal lawyer together with me, acting as an executor. Because I did not wish to be involved with her Will and found that she should see to this herself, I asked her to go to her lawyer to have this seen to in late 2004.
Pamela goes to her lawyer to change her Will and lie that she did not know she owns her property through her foundation in Panama, making out she can’t remember signing the transfer document. (See our email correspondence in 2004 ) note that we regularly communicated via email, Pamela was not blind at the time. I constantly had to “refresh” her memory, as she forgot from one day to another; I did this in emails apart from speaking to her when in London or where she visited us in South of France. (See email dated the 8 November 2004)
The police selected documentation from her laptop and my seized laptop, not disclosing the most important documentation, including hundreds of pages such as the above letter or even the police interviews like this of Mr Bernard Gentle, a company director. Documentation, which would have ridiculed her cock-and-bull story.
Interestingly, Pamela refused to acknowledge that she knew Bernard Gentle, even that he regularly, for many years, went around to see if she was all right. He had even escorted her to the wedding of her granddaughter Fiona at the Savoy Hotel and that they through the years must have attended more than 60-70 events together in Mayfair and the West-End of London.
Bernard Gentle tried for several days to find out if there was any court hearings or trial in 2008. After being told by various London courts, including the courts where the in-absentia trial took place, that there was no court hearings or trials taking place with my name, Bernard Gentle decided himself go around to each courtroom. After visiting more than 17 courtrooms, he saw Pamela sitting outside a courtroom. When he approached her, she shouted out that she had never met this man! In entering the courtroom, he did not see any jury only lawyers and the judge. When he asked what was taking place, he was arrested. He was later told that he was not allowed to attend the court. For him, it felt like being in Russia or China with their secret courts.
On the first day, of my arrest, the police saw on my seized laptop all about my case in Denmark and indeed the outline to a book, I was writing about the corruption in Westminster, including my involvement with the serious police corruption years earlier.
It is my intention to commence proceedings against Denmark, both for the torture I was subjected to, near 40 years ago, but also Denmark’s role in the in-absentia trial in London 28 years later
For Denmark’s assistance to the British Prosecution and Denmark’s neglect of protecting me, as a Danish national, against an in absentia trial with entirely fabricated evidence. An in-absentia trial, which was against Article 6 of the Human Rights Convention. Further, to allow Germany to extradite me on false claims and documentation.
It is clear from the submissions to the Court on November 2008, by the Court-appointed Counsel, that the European Arrest Warrant could not be used in my case, as an in-absentia trial would be against Article 6 of the ECHR.
Denmark failed to protect me, as a Dane, against legal abuse by another country and left me to rot in the worst possible place, without any help or assistance at an age well into the seventies, ill and frail – left me to rot.
It is my contention that Denmark bended backwards to assist the British prosecution and police to blacken my character and at the same time ignored my right as a Danish national to be protected. Specific when an in-absentia trial had been held, a trial in clear breach of the Convention. The aim was to blacken my character and justify the misdeed committed against my family and me.
Denmark translated and supplied the most damaging documentation to the in-absentia trial, documents, which was read our during the in-absentia trial to the 12 member jury.
A six weeks trial without me, the defendant being not present, without any defence lawyers, defence documentation and witnesses. These manufactured transcripts was 28 years old, and was dictated by Judge Claus Larsen.
The European Commission did not wish to see these hundreds of pages, back in the early 1980s, because they knew they had all been dictated, in order, to justify my long incarceration and the whole political case. These so-called “transcripts” were manufactured and doctored by “judge” Claus Larsen. When the case went forward to the European Court of Human Rights, the Court did not wish to see these transcripts, they knew the truth.
So manufactured documentation, which could not be of any use for the European Court of Human Rights, was 28 years later effectively used to blacken my person in front of 12 jury members and the Court.
No defence counsel was present. The adviser to the Court and the in-absentia trial, the amicus, Edward Jenkins QC, wrote objectively about his observation and what he and his assistant witnessed. He noted that the judge acted as the second prosecutor and further, he requested that witnesses should not be led, which they apparently, all had until that moment.
It is important to understand that this special appointed Court-appointed Counsel, came from the same Chamber as the prosecution and indeed, was only appointed few days before the trial, obviously having no time to look into the ten thousand selected documentation, nor proper prepare to advise the Court.
I have never seen the final indictment, nor ever the detailed judgement of this in-absentia trial, court records or documents that normally should be kept from such as a trial. However, I was subjected to the most terrible treatment at my late age in life, a treatment that caused me so many illnesses and suffering for years, when I was unable to fight due to illness and bereavement.
My adopted son Alexander, having lost his dear mother in 2008, grieving and coming back to Europe for Christmas, from China where he worked, was subject to a horrendous treatment by the British, despite they knew he was innocent. Nevertheless, they issued a European Arrest Warrant on him, based entirely on total trumped-up charges, which had no possibility to stand up in court. He had been a director of Pamela Schutzmann property company in Panama.
Alexander was arrested in Nice and kept in prison over Christmas, extradited to London, to be held incarcerated in terrible condition for another six weeks, denied bail until my son Mark posted a half a million pounds cash bail.
If this was not enough, they insisted that Alexander stayed in London for 11 months under restrictive conditions, despite he lived and worked in China. The trumped-up case was in December 2009 thrown out of the High Court. Alexander never received any compensation, absolutely outrageous and disgraceful. Another example of how the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) is abused by the British authorities.
Living with injustice –
There is injustice throughout the world ranging from the oppression of cultural and religious groups, widespread economic and social inequality, violence against women, and unequal access to medical care, legal protection, and education. Just think about the large social injustices faced by those living with impairments and disabilities around the world. For me to complain about the injustices against me, seem somewhat little in the world of injustices.
What happened to me, should be seen in relation to the fact that it was created entirely by the action of the Danish authorities, it was planned and deliberate with no consideration to what happened to the people involved. The Special Prosecution, Bagmandspolitiet, used harassment that its subtle nature meant that it was able to be plausibly denied.
What gave me the most weight in deciding to enter cyberspace was the great number of lies which surrounded my case on the Internet as well as the lies that surrounded the case of closing down healthy operating financial companies in 1980.
Lies which were compounded would ultimately crush the truth and cover up something which should have been exposed a long time ago.
Thousands of newspaper articles were published in Denmark at the time, (I listed more than one thousand five hundred newspaper articles to the European Commission of Human Rights, ECHR in 1983), mostly made up of stories with sensational headings, malicious lies and innuendoes; all very pre-judicial in my case. This was orchestrated by the Special Prosecution in their pursuit of covering up their injustices against my family, clients of the companies, the staff, and the companies themselves and me.
The Danish media ultimately created irrevocable harm to my family and me as you cannot get those lies and innuendoes back from the mind of the public. The media, at the time, totally controlled public opinion and the “truth” by creating their own stories, which become the truth in the public mind.
My defence lawyers, many clients and I had always hoped that the truth would be printed one day; but no such luck. After more than thirty-seven years, the whole event in Denmark has been swept under the carpet as something the authorities did not wish to go into or revisit; neither did the media which participated actively in the injustices.
Denmark, which always claimed to be a decent democratic country, – “a real virtuous nation, better than the rest of the world’s countries” and claiming to always adhere to the highest standard, certainly found itself “convicted” at the European Court of Human Rights because they did not provide me with a fair trial. A fair trial is the foundation of justice.
The Outrageous Allegation in London
As mentioned I had known Pamela Schutzmann since 1976, where I met her and her husband skying in Arosa Switzerland. I was there with my wife and sons and a senior American and his family skying. I met again Pamela in 1987, when I was a patron of the Royal Academy of Art in London and active in the local West-End amenity group, although, I also lived in Zurich. At the time she told me that her husband had died a few years earlier and she let me into a brief encounter, which immediately I stopped, nevertheless, it become so negative that I even had to change my telephone number to escape her attention.
Years later, in 1995, our path unfortunately pasted again, as I was introduced to her again at the Royal Academy of Arts, by my soulmate Romana. Six years before Romana had told me that she had worked for a woman Pamela and her husband Alfred back in mid-seventies, when she first came to London. I had no knowledge of that this was the same Pamela, that I had known.
Romana considered Pamela as her “English mother”. Pamela told Romana that she had lost nearly all her money, she had upon her husband’s death, more than ₤ 7 million. This all resulted in that Romana asked me to help Pamela to get some assets back, assets that she already had given to her more than 20 years younger boyfriend (John Bishop).
I succeeded in getting Pamela’s property in Barbados back and set about getting some of the other millions back, Pamela had put up all the money for the purchase of a large Devon estate, Valley Springs with a salmon farm. All this money Pamela had bestowed on her much younger boyfriend John Bishop.
Reluctantly, I later accepted to become Pamela’s sole trustee for her foundation in Liechtenstein and later when it moved to Panama and for many years holding her general power of attorney. Pamela was alone and had really only a few friends.
As to the allegation, everything Romana and I had done for Pamela through the more than 11 years, before my arrest, was for Pamela’s benefit and best interest, including protecting her from her son’s and grandchildren’s greed. The son had never worked and been a drug abuser all his adult life, he was 67 years at the time, he had several criminal conviction including serving years in prison in Iran.
Romana always felt very protective towards Pamela and took care of her in so many ways, nevertheless, Romana was concerned about Pamela many lies and her scheming. Romana and I had through the years, found Pamela lying about so many things and specific about her relationship with the much younger boyfriend John Bishop.
Through the many years, we took Pamela into our family of friends, as she had no friends in London. We introduced her to my family and even relatives from Denmark, who worked for the Danish police, we invited her regularly to the South of France, including for Christmas and Easter. She knew at least 60-80 of our friends and for many years in Mayfair, she was invited to many of our events ranging from charity balls to gallery openings and Garden Parties. We even took her along a few times to embassy receptions. She even misused a visit to the Austrian embassy, asking me to introduce her to the Austrian ambassador. We later found out that Pamela succeeded to get a special Austrian war widow pension, a pension she certainly had no right to receive, this fact, she hid from Romana and me for near 3 years.
As to the allegation of the robbery, in our villa, where we all were gassed, it was scandalous and a malicious allegation to even suggest that we had anything to do with this. A robbery, where the police immediately had been called by us and noted the robbery, which took place during the night. Even our Alsatian had been subject to sedation.
We were all was interviewed, including our staff and Pamela, who stayed with us at the time. Our friend, the police chief of Monaco for nearly 40 years, George Lukomski, suggested to me, it was people close to the local police or Gendarmerie who could be behind this robbery, where we all was gassed.
The local police told us that it was criminals from the Balkan. Although many of our friends in South of France had been robbed and even gassed, we always felt secure as we lived on the mountain overlooking Monaco, Mont Agel, where there had never had been any robbery or serious crime. The reason, we had a very private road, constantly policed, leading up to Prince Rainier, the Prince of Monaco, family residence and on the top of Mont Agel mountain it was occupied by Nice Air Base, itself built on the former Ouvrage Mont Agel of the Alpine Line fortifications, headquarter for the Mediterranean with several thousand officers working there daily.
Only 12-14 private properties are located along this road, which also led to Monaco Golf Course, owned by our next-door neighbour, Henry Rey, who also kept a private army of security people. Further, at the entrance of our villa, in the former caretaker’s house, lived Jacques de Provence and his wife Josette, he was the former director of entertainment in SBM, the company which own many of the hotels and the Casino in Monaco. It was Prince Rainier who had placed them in this house after his wife Princess Grace died in his garden at Cap D’Air. Jacques had regularly worked with Princess Grace for many years and was the co-founder with Prince Rainier of the famous annual Circus Festival in Monaco.
Therefore, we felt very secure, moreover, the Gendarmerie and local police were closed bye (within 1500 meter) and no one could escape as the road could be closed, nevertheless, we were robbed.
Some month after the robbery, Pamela came for Christmas to stay with us. She told us that “everybody” in London thoughts it was an inside job. I had previously considered that either our gardener or some temporary staff could be involved, but that was a non-starter. However, due to her dementia and drinking, the subject came regular up, when we spoke.
Going to London early January 2007
Considering that my partner-in-life, Romana was also subject to the outrageous allegation of defrauding Pamela, we planned to go to London on the 10th of January 2007 to be interviewed by the police. Romana and my adopted son Alexander were directors of a property company owned by Pamela’s foundation in Panama, a company which owned her property in Hampstead. The company was owned by Pamela’s foundation and established primarily for fiscal purpose, as I had plans in hand for a large property development, where her property would be central. Plans had been made years earlier for large property development, such development could make Pamela millions in profit one day.
We never made it to London, as Romana went into a brain seizure on the night of the 3rd of January, resulting in serious brain surgery on the 12th of January and later in March at Nice University Hospital. Romana survived these two brain operations, but very ill attending treatment in Switzerland and France during the following 12 months before dying in March 2008. Romana’s death left me in total grief and sorrow with acute severe bereavement and depression, ending with a suicide attempt in 2012.
A Field Day for the Police
No doubt, the seizure of my laptop and all the documents from our London apartment, gave the British police a field day, since they could clearly see some of the enemies in my life, including, the Conservative from the Westminster City Council, the London police, several major property companies, not to mention the Danish authorities. As to the Metropolitan Police, I had even received commendations for my work having served on the local police West-End board. OK, I had been warned as to the Conservative Party and even from important members of the British establishment. I was warned by the most senior members of this establishment, including, a friend and member of the Privy Council, leading to us moving more permanently to South of France.
Ministries have long memories
Ministries have long memories, and 28 years after this injustice in Denmark, the Danish authorities assisted the British authorities to create fictitious criminal indictment: hold a six weeks in-absentia trial, with a jury of 12; without the defendant (me), without defence lawyers, defence documentation and witnesses. I have to this day not even seen the final indictment.
Denmark assisted in an in-absentia trial in the UK
So 28 years after the injustice in Denmark, a 6 weeks in-absentia trial, based on this manufactured indictment, on charges the defendant had never testified to as he was ill being treated by several doctors in South of France. The judge at this in-absentia trial, acted as the second prosecutor and all witnesses was led, according to a special appointed legal counsel to the Court. The judge issued a sentence of ten years! These deeds by the British authorities were even more vicious and abhorrent, considering my health and age.
The Danish authorities assisted the British prosecution and paid for a translation to English of the hundreds of “transcripts” dictated by Judge Claus Larsen, after the hundreds of court hearings, nearly 30 years before. This was documents which the European Commission of Human Rights, and later the Court did not wish to see.
The Commission knew these documents were created, fabricated and made up, in order for the Danish authorities to justify the case against me. Nevertheless, nearly 30 years later, these transcripts were read out during the in-absentia trial in London. All to blacken my person at a time I was very ill and being treated at my home in the South of France by two doctors.
This May was the 30th anniversary for my “win” against Denmark at the Court of Human Rights. The next year 2020 it will be the 70th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights, it will also in January be 40 years since my political motivated arrest for alleged tax evasion, closing my profitable companies.
The case in England has nothing to do with what happened in Denmark 39 years ago only to the extent that I was criminalised by the Danish authorities and this came immediately to the attention of the British police who investigated these outrageous lies since they found my documents related to the case in Denmark.
When I first heard about these outrageous claims in London, I asked one of the barristers who I worked with preparing my case for the European Court of Human Rights Mr Kier Starmer to advise me as to get a criminal defence lawyer in London. Kier did, however, after five months, the lawyer thought the case was too small at the time, so I ended up with another lawyer.
My former defence barrister at the European Court of Human Rights Geoffrey Robertson QC assistant in the late 1980s was Kier Starmer. He was later appointed the Director of Prosecution in early 2009, in effect, after my in-absentia trial. He stepped down in late 2015 and lately have acted as the British Labour opposition’s spokesman as to Brexit.
As for my criminal defence, I ended up with another defence lawyer spending £80,000 not even being presented with the final charges. When the lawyer asked me for £400,000 in cash to cover the legal costs for defending the case, I stopped, as all this had developed too far; moreover, I was in bad health and in a deep depression after the loss of my soul mate.
Considering I did not pay £400,000 to the lawyers they stood down. So I did not have any legal representation in England. After hearing about a “trial in absentia” I was shocked and even more distressed, nevertheless, I wrote to Kier Starmer in February 2010. (KIER STARMER QC) It is important to note reading this content of my letter to Kier Starmer in February 2010, that I at that time had no knowledge of the true facts as to this trial-in-absentia, moreover, when writing to Kier Starmer I was ill taking strong medication.
What I did not know, that I had no defence, defence documentation and witnesses at this in-absentia trial. Even worse than the judge acted as the second prosecutor and all witnesses were led. Worst still, that Denmark had assisted with the translation of the manufactured transcripts from 1980s trial in Denmark and they were shown and read out to the 12 jury members at the in-absentia trial.
For obvious reason I did not receive a reply at the time, moreover, Kier Starmer first becomes Director of Public Prosecution, after the judgement had been made in the in-absentia trial. Kier Starmer was prevented to contact me due to his legal position and undertakings as DPP. He is now Sir Kier Starmer and a Labour member of Parliament.
The Danish Inquisitorial Legal System
My confrontation with the Danish Inquisitorial legal system ended up at the European Court of Human Rights, where Denmark lost their first case. I had not received a fair trial, the foundation of justice.
The Danish authorities prevented me from making the most serious complaint, for me, to the European Commission of Human Right, namely about my 309 days of total solitary confinement, ending in a 55 days hunger strike. This they were able to do as they held all communication with the Commission back for 26 months, something, totally against the Convention itself.
The British were even more calculated by making certain that my Application to the Court of Human Rights would not happen, as to my in-absentia jury trial in London. They deliberately took a laptop (which had taken me 15 months to get from the Ministry of Justice) with the completed application to ECHR with documentation in January 2017, only days before the six months limit, imposed by the Convention in Article 35. They had been listening to my telephone calls to my lawyer and family.
The British Adversarial Legal System
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word ‘adversary’ as ‘one’s opponent in a contest, conflict, or dispute’. That definition goes some way to explaining the adversarial legal system in the England and Wales under which, essentially, representatives from each party take opposing positions to debate and argue their case, whilst the Judge’s role is to uphold principles of fairness and equality and to remain neutral until the very end when he gives judgement.
We all have seen the scenes from British and American Court rooms, with the prosecution on one side and the defence team on the other front bench of the court. Each side presenting their case and arguments to the jury and judge.
A strong defence is a vital component of a fair trial. The defence teams represent and protect the rights of the defendant (suspect or accused). All defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before the Court.
A Travesty of Justice
“A miscarriage of justice; an act of the legal system that is an insult to the system of justice”.
The verdict at the in-absentia trial in London, was a travesty of justice.
A six week jury trial in 2008-2009, without the defendant, any defence, defence documentation or witnesses.
An in-absentia trial with 12 member jury, which the accused had not been informed about, nor seen the final indictment, as this indictment was changed during the six-week jury trial. The main charge had no legal basis.
A special advisor “a Court-appointed counsel” was appointed to the court, he advised the Judge before the commencement of the trial, that the trial could not go ahead, as it would be against Article 6, of the European Convention of Human Rights – the right to a fair trial. The judge ignored this and went ahead with the in-absentia trial.
This Court-appointed Counsel, amicus, also observed that the Judge acted as the second prosecutor during the six weeks in-absentia trial and worse all witnesses was led. None of the witnesses was ever question by the defence or seen by the defendant.
No transcript exist from the six-week in-absentia trial, nor records of the Judge’s Directions to the jury or Summing-up. The defendant have never seen a detailed judgement. Even the official court registration of the daily proceedings was false.
The jury could not agree on the most important charges. This meant these charges (outrageous in the first place) had to be decided by a forced majority vote by the 12-member jury.
The Judgement handed out, by the judge, from the in-absentia trial, was a ten-year sentence. There was no defense to question any witnesses or documentation during the six week trial. This sounds more like a banana republic than the home of the Magna Carta.
The same month, that the Judge, Anna Guggenheim, delivered the Judgement, she asked for an early retirement at the age of 53, after being one of the youngest female judges appointed to the High Court.
A substantial part of the documentation to blacken the defendant and sway the jury, against the defendant, Mogens Hauschildt (me) had been supplied by Denmark from manufactured transcripts 28 years earlier.
Denmark had translated hundreds of pages from a Danish trial 28 years earlier. A trial, which in 1989 was judge by 17 Judges of the European Court of Human Rights, was against the Article 6 of the Convention, the rights to a fair trial.
These documents translated by the Danish authorities to English, was manufactured transcripts from the Danish trial 28 years earlier to cover up the truth of the real political reason behind the case in 1980-84.
Transcripts, that the Commission and later the European Court of Human Rights, did not wish to see, since they were well aware that they been manufactured by the Danish authorities to justify the political case against me.
These transcripts had been created by subjective dictation by the trial Judge, Claus Larsen, sometimes weeks after the Court hearings, and never reflected what really took place in the hundreds of court hearings
This Judge, Claus Larsen, was later judged by the full Court of 17 Judges Court of Human Rights, from all member countries, not to have given the defendant, me, Mogens Hauschildt, a fair trial.
Nevertheless, these Danish manufactured transcripts were used to blacken the defendant 28 years later in the in-absentia trial in London. Hundreds of pages with smear slander and lies in front of the 12-member jury.
Before and after the in-absentia trial, the British police published press releases, which was appalling spiteful, full of lies and false accusations and total outrageous, displayed inexplicable and unjustified prejudice against the defendant. Again, the Danish tabloid press just copied the British police’s press releases.
The defendant, Mogens Hauschildt (me) was at the time of the in-absentia trial, in his home in South of France, ill from severe depression and bereavement, under the treatment by two doctor and prescribed strong medication making me unfit.
No attempt was made to contact the defendant, me, neither before the in-absentia trial nor after. As Interpol records show, the French police did not go to my home, Villa les Anges, before one year after the in-absentia trial. I first received a letter from the High Court in London ten months after the trial, telling me of the judgement.
The case, was a payback from the Conservatives Party, the Masons and parts of the Jewish community – three very powerful elements of the British establishment. Later it become a payback from Denmark, who saw an opportunity to blacken my character.
They used a systemic corrupt system with a corrupt judge, prosecution and police. Outrageous allegation made by a very ill 87 years old alcoholic woman and her drug addicted and dysfunctional 64 years old son, who had never worked in his life.
The case was handled by a corrupt low rank and uneducated police constable Mark Loftus, he was able to act deceptive with criminal behaviour, despite he had many serious complaints against him, and even, had been demoted to lower rank.
It was clear to the defence lawyers back in 2007, that DC Loftus pre-empted the normal police enquiry, from early days of the investigation, with an intriguing tangle of inadequacies, lies and downright fabrication and withholding crucial evidence.
My defence lawyers made an official complaint about DC Loftus, in 2008 to the Commissioner and IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission. Loftus should have immediacy been removed. Unfortunately, I was unable to see to anything, unfit with my soul mate dying.
I worked for a long time to expose the systemic corruption in the early and mid-1990s with the Conservatives running the Westminster City Council (WCC), in London. WCC is the most powerful borough in London, headed at the time, by Lady Porter Shirley Porter and the Conservatives.
Lady Porter, the heir to the Tesco fortune had ultimate to flee to Israel after being found guilty of wilful misconduct and ordered to pay £36.1 million. She was appointed Dame Commander of the Order of the British Empire in 1991 by John Major after delivering “a spectacular victory” in Westminster for the Conservatives in the 1990 elections.
The systemic corruption by the Conservative Party and indeed other political parties with their corrupt practises is still endemic. Moreover, at the time, the corrupt local police with its hands in the till, it appears that this is still the case from time to time.
Mayfair and Soho shared the ward, during the years I helped to expose considerable police corruption in Westminster, a place where the whole police squad (the so-called Porn squad) including, the Commander was exposed and sent to jail.
A corruption on a scale, which beggars’ description. Eventually there were two major corruption trials and George Fenwick, Bill Moody, Wally Virgo and Kenneth Drury were all given between ten and fourteen years in prison.
Sadly, police corruption still remain a big issue, specific in local licensing, however, the real big corruption, for hundreds of millions, even billions, is still is so deep rooted and even endemic in councils across Britain (see: Bricks, bribery and mortar, Sunday Times December 17 2017)
On behalf of the Residents’ Association in Mayfair, I fought the greed of landowners and property developers wanting to build offices and commercialise Mayfair. I fought to keep Mayfair mostly residential, as a local village, as I recalled back in the 50s and 60s.
I, instigated the fight against Crossrail going under Mayfair and went to the House of Lord fighting Crossrail project, we wanted a different route. Considering this project would make billions for the advisors, lawyers and bankers, this was not very popular.
The Crossrail project was due to cost max ₤6 Billion, now I see that the final cost could be more than ₤20 billion. The fees earned by the “City Mafia” must be in excess of ₤2-3 billion – yes, indeed, I created powerful enemies.
No doubt that I created many powerful enemies at the time, all waiting to bounce on me one day. I had already back in mid-90s received warnings by very senior people, including from a member of the Privy Council and a former Conservative Government minister.
More than 12 years later the opportunity came, with the outrageous allegation, first giving me a heart attack and later the death of my soul mate. All making me total incapable of dealing with allegation, which never should have gone to a Court of Law.
The worst part of these trumped-up criminal charges, other innocents people, including my soul mate Romana and her son Alexander, who I had adopted, was accused. Romana died of a brain tumour before anything could happen to her as to these outrageous charges.
Alexander’s case was thrown out of Court. First, he had to suffer a horrendous experience of imprisonment for 8 weeks (in France and London); further, he had to stay in London for 9 months. No compensation has ever been paid.
The background for the outrageous allegation from the 87-year-old woman and her son was greed. A property development for potential more than ₤100 million, involving her property. I had already worked for years to see that one day she would make money from such development. She could have made millions; instead, lawyers, the son, grandson and others stole it all.
A Travesty of Justice
“A miscarriage of justice; an act of the legal system that is an insult to the system of justice”.
The verdict at the in-absentia trial in London, a six-week jury trial in 2008-2009, without the defendant, any defence lawyers, defence documentation or witnesses was a travesty of justice”
In November and December 2008 and January 2009, a six-week in-absentia jury trial took place in London, without the defendant, any defence lawyer or defence documentation and witnesses.
An in-absentia trial where the accused (me) had not even seen the final indictment, an indictment that was ambiguous and changed during the six-week jury trial on based on manufactured evidence, by corrupt police and prosecution.
A special advisor to the Court “a Court-appointed counsel” was appointed to the court, days before the in-absentia trial, he advised the Judge before the commencement of the trial, that the trial could not go ahead, as it would be against Article 6, the right to a fair trial. Moreover, that a European Arrest Warrant could not be used later if the trial ended in a conviction. Although he was appointed to be amicus to the court and advice the court, he found his position had been ignored and reduced to be an observer. He wrote in his submission to the Judge in December 2008 (13.12.2008):
“This has been a trial in which the defendant has:
i) not been present;
ii) not been represented;
iii) not given evidence;
iv) not called any witnesses;
v) not advanced a positive case
Accordingly, the nature of the proceedings has not been adversarial”
This Court-appointed Counsel also observed that the Judge acted as the second prosecutor during the in-absentia trial and worse all witnesses were led. None of the witnesses was ever questioned by the defence.
No transcript exist from this in-absentia trial, nor have records of the Judge’s Direction or Summing-up, even the detailed judgement never been seen by the defendant.
The jury could not agree on the most important charges and therefore, had to be decided on a majority vote.
The Judgement handed out from the in-absentia trial, was a ten-year sentence. This sounds more like a banana republic than the home of the Magna Carta. The amount in question was 312,000 as to the mortgage. Considering I had full power as trustee, even this should never have entered a court.
The same month, that the Judge, Anna Guggenheim, delivered the Judgement, she asked for early retirement at the age of 53, after being one of the youngest female judges appointed to the High Court.
Fabricated Documentation sent from Denmark
A substantial part of the documentation to blacken the defendant, Mogens Hauschildt (me), who was not in Court, had been supplied by Denmark.
Denmark had translated hundreds of pages from a Danish trial 28 years earlier. A trial, which in 1989 was judged by the full Court of 17 Judges of the European Court of Human Rights, was against Article 6 of the Convention, the rights to a fair trial.
These documents translated by the Danish authorities to English was manufactured transcripts, dictated by a Judge convicted by the ECHR, and from the Danish trial 28 years earlier to cover up the truth of the real political reason behind the case in 1980-84.
Transcripts, that the Commission and later the European Court of Human Rights, did not wish to see since they were well aware that they been manufactured.
These transcripts had been created by subjective dictation by the trial Judge, sometimes weeks after the Court hearings, and never reflected what really took place in the hundreds of court hearings
This Judge, Claus Larsen, was later judged by the full Court of 17 Judges Court of Human Rights, from all member countries at the time, not to have given the defendant, Mogens Hauschildt, a fair trial.
Nevertheless, these Danish manufactured transcripts were used to blacken the defendant 28 years later in the in-absentia trial in London. Hundreds of pages with smear slander and lies in front of the 12-member jury, who was never able to hear anything from the accused or the defence.
Before and after the in-absentia trial, the British police press releases were appalling spiteful, full of lies and false accusations and totally outrageous, displayed inexplicable and unjustified prejudice against the defendant. Again, the Danish tabloid press just copied such police press releases, without any responsibility to the truth of what had taken place.
The defendant, Mogens Hauschildt (me) was at the time of the in-absentia trial, in my home in South of France, ill from severe depression and bereavement, under the treatment by two doctors and prescribed strong medication making him unfit.
I had been bailed to my home, Villa les Anges, in France, in December 2007 by HH Justice Mitting at the High Court in London, who declared that the police had subjected the defendant to blatant abuse of process and lied.
No attempt was made to contact me, neither before the in-absentia trial nor after.
As Interpol’s records clearly show, the French police did not go to my home, Villa les Anges, before one year after the in-absentia trial. Further, I first received a letter from the High Court in London ten months after the trial, telling me of the judgement, but not showing the indictment or anything else.
Now if this had been a parking ticket, but it was a sentence of ten years, for something I did not have a clue about. Firstly, as there could not be any form of a criminal act, my partner Romana, her son and me in relation to Pamela Schutzmann, we had all acted in accordance to her instructions and indeed for her best. Secondly, how could there be any trial, without the accused, any defence and defence documentation?
The Case – a Payback
The case, was payback and back-stapping from the Conservatives Party, the Masons and parts of the Jewish community – three very powerful elements of the British establishment. Later It becomes a payback from Denmark, who saw an opportunity to blacken again my character.
They used a systemic corrupt system with a corrupt judge, prosecution and police. Outrageous allegation made by a very ill 87 years old woman and her drug-addicted and dysfunctional 64 years old son, all motivated by greed.
The case was handled by a corrupt low rank and uneducated police constable, Mark Loftus, he was able to act deceptively with criminal behaviour, despite he had many serious complaints against him, and even had been demoted to lower rank.
It was clear to the defence lawyer back in 2007: that DC Loftus pre-empted the normal police enquiry, from early days of the investigation, with an intriguing tangle of inadequacies, lies and downright fabrication and withholding crucial evidence, even worse, making perjury to the Court, by misrepresentation under oath.”
My defence lawyers made an official complaint about DC Loftus, in 2008 to the Commissioner and IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission. He should have immediacy been removed. Unfortunately, I was unable to see to anything, unfit with my soul mate dying.
Systemic Corruption in Local Councils
The depressing truth is that corruption is endemic in Britain’s bureaucratic planning system. As Rohan Silva recently wrote: “In every corner of the country, you can find stories of bribery, with local councillors and officials rigging the planning process for their own gain…….In other words, corruption is systemic and it’s caused by the inadequacy of Britain’s property rights. Outmoded development laws allow crime to thrive.” These words by a former adviser to David Cameron, printed by the Sunday Times.
Well, this corruption was there in London’s most powerful borough Westminster City Council (WCC) in the 1980s and 1990s. I worked for a long time to expose the systemic corruption in the early to mid-1990s with the Conservatives running the Westminster City Council, headed at the time, by Lady Porter Shirley Porter and the Conservatives.
Lady Porter, the heir to the Tesco fortune had ultimate to flee to Israel after being found guilty of wilful misconduct and ordered to pay £36.1 million.
The systemic corruption by the Conservative Party and indeed other political parties with their corrupt practices is still endemic. Moreover, at the time, the corrupt local police with its hands in the till it appears that this is still the case from time to time.
Mayfair and Soho shared the ward, during the years I helped to expose considerable police corruption in Westminster, a place where the whole police squad (the so-called Porn squad) including, the Commander was exposed and sent to jail.
Corruption on a scale, which beggars’ description. Eventually, there were two major corruption trials and George Fenwick, Bill Moody, Wally Virgo and Kenneth Drury were all given between ten and fourteen years in prison.
Sadly, police corruption still remains a big issue, specific in local licensing, however, the real big corruption is in property, for hundreds of millions, even billions is still is so deep-rooted and even endemic in councils across Britain (see: Bricks, bribery and mortar, Sunday Times December 17 2017)
On behalf of the Residents’ Association of Mayfair (RAM), I fought the greed of landowners and property developers wanting to build offices and commercialise Mayfair. I fought to keep Mayfair mostly residential, as a local village, as I recalled back in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
On behalf of RAM, I fought against the continuation of use of temporary granted office space, with the aim of getting residential space back to the Mayfair community. Not more offices which were advocated by the main landowner Grosvenor Estate and many property companies. I believed that one day, residential space would be far more valuable than offices.
We won the fight, and most of the offices were converted to residential, it was a very hard fight against strong commercial interests at the time. I was right about residential space in Mayfair, residents become far more valuable and today I am sure many are thankful for this.
The fight for the change of use, from offices to residential was a hard and bitter fight. At the time we were up against a wall of money, the interest of the landowners, property companies and leaseholders, all the huge political clout. We won, and today Mayfair have so much more residential space, however, it was for me at a great personal cost, with my in absentia trial and incarceration. At the time we knew it was a fight for hundreds of million pounds, now we know that possibly billions of pounds have been made from the residential space.
Our fight was subject to a lot of press coverage, even the Danish daily financial newspaper covered the fight. Although, wrongly as normal, they reported we had lost the battle. The above article tells in Danish about my case in Denmark and wrongly report my win against Denmark. Since all means were used in our fight for residential space, I had many times been more or less blackmailed as to this event in Denmark, nothing new.
I, instigated, 30 years ago, the fight against Crossrail going under Mayfair and went to the House of Lord fighting Crossrail project, we wanted a different route. Considering this project would make billions for the advisors, lawyers and bankers, this was not very popular.
The Crossrail project was due to cost max of ₤6 Billion, now I see that the final cost could be more than ₤20 billion. The fees earned by the “City Mafia” must be in excess of ₤2-3 billion – yes, indeed, I created powerful enemies.
No doubt that I created many powerful enemies at the time, all waiting to bounce on me one day. I had already back in the mid-90s received warnings by very senior people, including from a member of the Privy Council and a former Conservative Government minister.
More than 12 years later the opportunity came, with the outrageous allegation, first giving me a heart attack and later the death of my soul mate. All making me total incapable of dealing with these allegations, ill with severe depression and bereavement. Unable to deal with anything, including a case which never should have gone to a Court of Law.
After my involvement stopped with the Association and we left for South of France, the Mayfair Residents’ Association was for many years the tool and a lapdog for property peoples interest in Mayfair, they were in total control. It appears now, after 25 years, that we have completed a full circle, as my son Alexander is now in charge of dealing with planning issues in Mayfair on behalf of the Association.
LIES, LIES AND LIES AGAIN
I wrote in early 2016, I have been incarcerated, mostly for 24 hours a day, in abject conditions, in dank Victorian dungeons for 3½ years, I have had ample time to reflect on what happened to me and why. Until this event, I have for more than 56 years, naively, expressed respect for Britain, and even partly educated my sons here and seen some of my grandchildren partly educated here.
After witnessing in the 1980s and 1990s, the huge corruption in local and central government in London, including the police and politics, I lost my naïve belief. Nevertheless, I still had some regards as to the British justice system. In the late 1980s, I even went, in front of 17 countries judges in Strasbourg, from 17 countries in the European Court of Human Rights, making positive reference to the British human rights and the independence of the British judges.
Alone the fact, that after 8 years, since ‘my’ in-absentia trial took place, I have not been able to see the transcripts from the 6 weeks jury trial, speaks for itself. To hold an in-absentia trial, without the defendant, defence lawyers, defence documentation and witnesses and not let the defendant see the judgement, the judge’s several directions to a 12-member jury – nothing, after 8 years, reflect the status of justice in today’s Britain.
Having witnessed the truth, how total dysfunctional, the British justice and penal systems are, I have lost all respect. Having witnessed, the ineptitude of most parts of the criminal justice system, I am not surprised, as to the blatant abuse of power in my case and extradition obtained, because of executive misconduct.
When the authorities blatantly lied to get me extradited from Germany and grossly abused the European Arrest Warrant, it is not at all surprising that they could create a case and hold an in-absentia trial. The executive abuse of the EAW is nothing, compared to the holding of the in-absentia trial. Such trials were prior to 2002, referred to by a large group of senior members of the British judiciary and the parliament, as “kangaroo court”.
A kangaroo court is a judicial tribunal or assembly that ignores recognized standards of law or justice, a term may also apply to a court held by a legitimate judicial authority who intentionally disregards the court’s legal or ethical.
The defendant has been denied legal aid for an appeal. Not been offered a lawyer to assist him for a new trial or his appeal Art. 6 (1) of ECHR. His rights to have legal advice to an appeal: “equality of arms” (égalité des armes) has been totally ignored. It took the defendant 21 months to get access to an old laptop without spellcheck.
Until now, the defendant has been denied a re-trial. Art 6 ECHR (3) (c) or have not been proper capable of applying re-trial, further, since the absence of legal representation at this stage could in certain circumstances affect the fairness of the proceedings as a whole.
Protocol 7 Art.2.“ everyone convicted of a criminal offence to have his or her conviction or sentence review by a higher tribunal”. It is at least arguable that the words of the text do not achieve this as to “application for leave as a form of review under this provision” Protocol No.7 to the Convention as amended by Protocol 11. Article 2. Right to appeal in criminal matters.
The defendant had been denied his rights under Art 6 (3) (6) “requires the accused to have “at his disposal for the purposes of exonerating himself, or of obtaining a reduction in his sentence, all relevant elements that have been or could be collected by the competent authorities” Further, as to EHRR Art 6 (3)(c) as to representation and “….that representation must be effective” [Ebanks v. UK (2010) 51 EHRR 2 and Art 6 (3)(d) as to hearsay evidence. “
Article 6: Right to a fair and public hearing
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
- to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him
- to have adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his defence
- to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require
- to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him
- to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
An Affront to Justice
How was it possible, to go along with such outrageous allegation, made by a 86 years old women, suffering from Korsakoff’s syndrome and dementia, as a result of 50 years of alcohol abuse. How was it possible, to even note, the incoherent allegations made by her 64-year-old drug-addicted son, who had depended on his mother all his life, had a criminal record and never worked. Much worse, for the police not to proper instigate the documentation for such shocking allegation and try to find the truth.
I had known the “victim” since 1976, and acted for more than ten years with her power of attorney and 6 years as her trustee, always acting in her interest, as my partner-in-life considered her as her English mother. I succeed in 1997 to get a property back into her estate, a property she had given to her much younger boyfriend, a Barbados property worth half a million.
How could a low-rank corrupt police constable, Mark Loftus make dishonest representation to the court and fabricate a case, ignoring the facts, and not even request, elementary documentation and proof, like bank statement from the many foreign bank accounts involved?
To even start an investigation based on such obvious lies. All founded on outrageous untruthfulness and lies. Moreover, for the police to cover-up and hide documentation and facts from the court, making everything opaque. Constable Loftus peddled lies and distortions with innuendoes and conjectures, demonstrably untrue fabrication – an affront to justice.
The recent Attorney General’s review of disclosure in the United Kingdom, published in 2018, sadly fails to address the plight of innocent people who have been wrongly imprisoned.
Geoffrey Cox QC MP’s review found that police are “not always” following reasonable lines of enquiry, meaning leads that could point to a defendant’s innocence are not being pursued.
The report also admitted that police and prosecutors are “not always applying the disclosure test correctly, which means that material should be disclosed is not disclosed”.
When the police do not in cases where they are facing the defendant and his defence in Court, disclose material that could point to a defendant’s innocence, one can clearly understand, what an in-absentia trial means with the defendant and lawyers.
The review failed to address problems with the current law on disclosure after conviction, which makes it almost impossible for those seeking to overturn their convictions to discover and access evidence wrongly withheld from them at trial.
While this review accepts that there are serious problems that need fixing, it ignores the plight of those who are already wrongly imprisoned because of police and prosecutors failing to disclose key evidence.
The Attorney General failed to address issues with the law that currently governs access to evidence after conviction, which means it is almost impossible for the innocent to access justice.
As to my case, all this would not have been possible, without that the police exploited and later the prosecution, my illness, and the illness and death of my soul mate. Therefore, I am responsible for not stopping this madness. Yes, I am responsible, if I can be ‘blamed’ for being mentally and physically ill.
The fact, I suffered from severe depression and grief after the death of my soul mate. Further, the police knew from the first day, after seizing documentation from my laptop and files from the London apartment, that I had since 1980 suffered PTSD and severe depression from my 309 solitary confinement torture and 55 days hunger strike in Denmark. All this was exploited, fully and effectively.
Having witnessed, that on average 30-35% plus, of all the prisoners in London prison are mentally ill, and should be under medical treatment and not imprisoned, it is common, and that mental illness are exploited by the police and prosecution and later ignored by the courts. In fact, in the UK, large amounts of people are jailed, in effect, for being ill.
If I had not suffered a heart attack, upon hearing these outrageous allegations and lies in 2006, and my soul mate had not to fight 15 months of illness with brain tumours and die, there would be no case. Moreover, I would not at old age, find myself in a dank Victorian dungeon, and not see the sun for more than three and a half years. Further, having to wait, more than 4-5 months to urgently, see a doctor and dentist.
I was not only wrongful convicted, but the trial itself contravened the foundation for justice and the European Convention of Human Rights Article 6, the right to a fair trial. This was even pointed out to the judge, before the in-absentia trial, by the court-appointed counsel. Further, he told the court in 2008, that the EAW could not be used, if I was convicted. Therefore, the British authorities deliberately set about to deceive and lie to Germany, in order to get me extradited in 2013.
It is fundamentally clear to me, that when the Crown Prosecution Service could blatantly lie to the German authorities and courts, as to the case, that the defendant had defence representation, at the six-week in-absentia trial, and me they simply cannot be trusted.
Lying about, that I had two defence barristers representing me at the in-absentia trial, an absolute lie, as there was no defence representation, during the 6 weeks jury trial.
I, as the defendant, was not even informed about the trial, according to Interpol’s documentation, and had no form of representation at all during the trial, therefore, the Crown deliberately planned to lie to the German authorities as to the basis for extradition from the outset.
The Court-appointed counsel, the amicus, had prior to the in-absentia trial submitted to the Court, that the European Arrest Warrant could not be used, if the trial resulted in a conviction, due to the fact, that the in-absentia trial would be against Article 6 of the Convention.
The two people, who deliberately lied, from the police and prosecution, were the main participant in the in-absentia trial, the investigation and indictment and the following cover-up.
It was clear to the defence lawyer back in 2007, that DC Loftus pre-empted the normal police enquiry, from early days of the investigation, with an intriguing tangle of inadequacies, lies and downright fabrication and withholding crucial evidence, possibly with a corrupt motive.
My defence lawyers made an official complaint, in 2008 to the Commissioner and IPCC (Independent Police Complaints Commission), as to DC Loftus, which naturally caused additional animosity between the defendant, the defence and DC Loftus.
Defence lawyer Morag Rea stated already in July 2007: “that the integrity of the prosecution is fatally flawed due to the dishonest representations of DC Loftus. This has tainted the subsequent prosecution to such a degree that to proceed with it would amount to an abuse of process.”
Five months later, at my arrest in December 2007, HH Justice Mitting, granted me immediately bail, having found: “serious abuse of the court’s process involving the officer in the case (DC Loftus) lying to Mr Hauschildt’s solicitor…” At the time, I had flown into London for the day, to be interviewed by the police, having left my partner-in-life in our home, dying at any moment from a brain tumour.
All this should be seen in relations to the police and the prosecution’s stake to obtain a conviction, at all costs, by taking advantage of my illness and grief.
They proceeded with the in-absentia trial and it is clear from their actions, that they did not really want me to attend such trial. They wanted to obtain a conviction, whatever it took, even when, not all the jury members agreed.
This action should be seen in relation to the court-appointed counsel’s role and his observation, that “the judge acted as the second prosecutor” and that the 46 witnesses were led in front of the 12-member jury. This court-appointed amicus, a colleague to the Crown’s prosecutor and came from the same chamber, reported objectively, what he witnessed during the 6 weeks in-absentia trial. It took me years to see these submissions by amicus, in fact, 18 months into my incarceration in London.
The prosecution’s obvious and blatant lie reflects no basis for objectivity.
It is in this light that the whole case must be seen. If judicial professionals can say that something, which is clearly white, is black, there is no basis to proceed or argue. The Court totally ignored that I was appointed a trustee and had the general power of attorney to act. Further, I had a duty to protect Pamela Schutzmann as to the “real” ownership of her estate.
It was a fact that I, the defendant, was not present or had any form of legal representation at the six-week in-absentia jury trial in 2008.
A trial held conveniently, at a time that my life and person, had totally fallen apart into severe depression and grief after the death of my partner-in-life for 19 years. All known to the British authorities at the time from the many medical reports submitted during 2008 and before. After all, she had also been falsely accused in the case.
When David Williams, the prosecutor, told the German authorities, in writing, that two defence barristers represented me, he knew it was a direct lie, as he himself attended the trial for 6 weeks as the main participant. Where are the law and justice?
I knew that the case is riddled with procedural errors and demonstrably untrue statements, with material irregularities full of inaccuracies, innuendoes and corrupted evidence – an affront to justice.
The prosecution failed to investigate the truth behind these outrageous allegations. I did not know for years, that there was no form of legal representation – none so ever, at the 6 weeks jury trial! It took me 18 months into my incarceration, to know this.
Falsified Court Records
Even the court records of the trial were falsified. The Wood Green Crown Court’s official records and computer files (Record Sheet T20080141) showed that barristers daily attended for the defence. They had listed the court-appointed counsel, the amicus, as defence lawyers. Therefore, any journalist or authority enquiring would be under that false impression and lie.
Even I, the convicted, until two years into my incarceration, and more than 6 years after the trial, was under that specific belief, that I had been represented by two defence barristers. I knew that these appointed ‘defence barristers’; had not been in contact with my defence team (who had already cost in excess of £100,000); attempted to contact me; had any defence documentation and witnesses, all this I knew. However, I still believed that a British court would not directly breach not only, the European Convention of Human Rights, but also the most fundamental to justice, that the two parties are there in court or represented in front of a judge and a jury.
As to any of the other grave abuses and a misdemeanour by the police, prosecution and the court, they just pile up in one big process, where there was a blatant abuse of power – an injustice.
One can argue about the interpretation of laws, rules and procedures, the objectivity of the parties involved, but when the authorities completely ignore the facts and resort to downright fabrication, one has to question the moral and ethical of the highest authority.
To lie about the most fundamental part, as to holding a fair trial; that the two parties are presented; that when the accused is not present; that he/she is represented in court. I find this not only deplorable but also immoral. We all know what people is cable off when moral values go out of the window.
The Judge and Crown maintained that the trial was held in accordance with the basis of a fair trial, why did they then later, have to resort to lies about the defendant’s legal representation. Could it be that they had taken note from the court-appointed counsel’s submissions to the Court, as to a breach of the European Conventions of Human Rights? Further, that the trial was not adversarial and using outrageous hearsay evidence and downright fabrication to blacken my person.
Unfortunately, I had no access to any law books in my incarceration, and as I was without legal representation, I could nor argue much as to this fundamental issue of law and ethics. Further, the judge, who acted as the second prosecutor during the in-absentia trial, according to the Court-appointed amicus, took very early retirement, at the age of 53, after passing the ten-year sentence.
When a lawyer saw in print that the police (DC Mark Loftus) and the Crown (David M. Williams) had lied to the German authorities, he expressed great importance to this. I was a little surprised, as I had a long list of lies and misdeeds by the police and prosecution and had not placed so much importance in – just another lie. I had not realised the importance of this lie about a fundamental legal issue, as it truly reflected the whole case and showed the authorities will do anything for a conviction, whatever they had to do.
Lawyers in Jersey, Channel Islands just stole my home above Monaco and kept all the assets
With non-disclosure, outrageous untruthfulness and lies the British police and prosecution abused the system and had an restrain orders issued, with grave consequences and I maintain, with criminal intent. Although my Swiss and Monaco banks ignored this restraining order, the British banks and lawyers could not.
This allowed lawyers in Jersey Channel Islands, the Equiom Group, to take maximum advantages of the situation, selling my home, above Monaco, to themselves at arm- length, for less than we paid 13 years earlier. Thereafter, they just stole the proceed. We have never seen a penny.
Interestingly, having worked with “the business” in the early days of the offshore business, back in the mid-1960s, I have always warned against using Jersey or Channel Island legal structures, since many lawyers there are worse and more unethical than in any other offshore location. I go back to the time that we used to pay sheep farmers in Alderney ten pounds a year to be nominee directors of companies and having seen through fifty years the worst exploitation by lawyers and so-called advisors of their client in so many offshore locations.
It is, therefore, a bitter irony for me, to see lawyers exploiting a situation and “again” stealing assets which do not belong to them. Sadly, I did not control using a Jersey entity, as I was ill and taking care of my dying soulmate. (see my initial instructions dated 19 March 2007)
I will pursue these criminals, with a Criminal breach of fiduciary duty and Unjust enrichment lawsuit. See soon Equiom-Fraud.com
As I mentioned above, it has always been my experience that that Channel Island fiduciary and trusts services help themselves to much larger fees than in most other “offshore” locations. Such consideration was recently confirmed by an article in the Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/08/fall-of-jersey-how-tax-haven-goes-bust).
The Tax Justice Network (TJN), which investigates the offshore industry, and publishes a Financial Secrecy Index, to assess how tax havens attract illicit cash. The biennial index, launched in 2009, has consistently ranked Jersey in or close to the top 10 jurisdictions facilitating “illicit financial flows and capital flight” – ahead of the British Virgin Islands, Panama and Gibraltar. Newspapers from around the world picked up on the studies and highlighted Jersey’s role in sucking wealth out of the countries that need it most.
Locked up 24/7 in a dunk Victorian dungeon, in filth and squalor
I wrote in 2016, objectively, looking at the shocking treatment, I have been subject to at my age and suffering many illnesses; the many moves, from prison to prison, from cell to cell; with the loss of my clothes and possession for months; worst with no access to urgent medical care, sometimes for up to more than 4-5 months. Further, not allowing me legal aid to engage lawyers; not allowing facilities to work on my case; I have to ask – what was the objective?
It is a sad reality, that when people are innocent, it takes on average 17 years to expose the injustice, in the meantime, by leaning on the prison service, they know how to destroy and even kill this person, who fights for justice.
“You can judge a society by the way it treats its prisoners” – Winston Churchill
I wrote in 2016:
I am into 3½ years’ incarceration, including in Wandsworth, Pentonville and Wormwood Scrubs prisons; the Prime Minister David Cameron has subjected me to “the most repressive regime, in filth and squalor”, as even described in The Times.
The Times, 9th December 2015, as to HMP Pentonville, headline:
“Lack of humanity is most shocking” “I predict a riot…… Dickensian prisons are ready to explode”
“There were piles of rubbish on the wings and bloodstains on the sheets at Pentonville when inspectors arrived. It was such a health risk that the team leader threatened to take his staff out unless it was cleaned up.” “Revolting would be the right word,”says Nick Hardwick, the chief inspector of prisons. We found filth and squalor. It is not about money. Violence is rising.
There were 267 deaths in custody in the year to September. The number of self-inflicted deaths has zoomed. In fact, there were 18,874 assaults and 30,706 incidents of self-harm during 2015.
As to HMP Wormwood Scrubs, Nick Hardwick stated: “The prison officers have a reputation of being tough, yet I had officers coming up to me and saying ‘go and look at these cells because I wouldn’t keep a dog in them’.”
The Guardian headline on the 8th October 2014, “Wormwood Scrubs cuts led to ‘Chaos and dysfunction’.” This article raised serious concern as to the dirty, dilapidated and filthy state of the prison. I should know, as I was one who had stayed longest, at the time, in the notorious D-wing of Pentonville prison, a place where murders took place, lots of suicide, despondency, distress and suffering. According to seasoned prisoners, the worst hellhole in Britain. I caught many mice and kept 15 in my cell, never mind the rats and cockroaches.
I have witnessed in the last three and a half years, the total failure and the dysfunctional penal system in the UK. However, prisons are a symptom of social failure, and as much a cause of crime as a cure for it. I have always maintained that you can judge a nation’s democracy by its jails.
Since I did not see the sun for three and half year, as it was too dangerous to go outside into a prison yard with piles of rubbish and constant threats of violence, I developed acute deficiency of D vitamin, the D-vitamin deficiency caused me considerable pain with rheumatoid arthritis, added to my depression and ultimately gave me diabetic. Over time research has linked low vitamin D levels with diabetes, cardiovascular disease, autoimmune disease, osteoporosis and cancer.
Denied lawyers and a ‘real’ trial
In the years after my initial arrest in 2006, I spent more than ₤120,000 on lawyers and after my 2013 arrest more than ₤350,000 was spent in total, just lawyer’s usual billings, basically doing nothing in return, as I did not have a court case or trial, only the trial in-absentia. Moreover, it was me who ultimately got access to what had taken place with the in-absentia trial and the whole truth. I simply could not allow more money to be spent on such leaches, I wanted the British taxpayers to pay for their misdeed.
Despite being denied a legal aid lawyer, to advise on appeal, and denied access to the court transcripts from the in-absentia trial (after 8 years), I was able to file an application for an appeal in June 2015 for a new and “fair trial”. I submitted a 176 pages submission with hundreds of exhibits of documentation. Near 12 months after submitting this, I was told that a large number of my submissions and documentation had been lost or mislaid by the Court!
According to the Crown’s own submission to the Court dated the 30th November 2008, I, the defendant, should “personally be served with the decision, without delay, after the surrender, and thereupon be informed of his right to a re-trial...” That should have taken place in May 2013, when returning to London. Moreover, it was an obligation for the UK to offer me a re-trial, when I was extradited from Germany, in accordance with the EAW.
As with everything, I have been denied my rights for a new trial, an obligation set out by the European Council Framework Decision, since I arrived three and a half year ago, falsely extradited from Germany, by abuse of executive power. In view, that I had many physical illnesses and suffered severe depression, I was subjected to being moved around 6 times to 4 London prison and more than 20 cells, all part of the process, to destroy my ability to fight and expose the truth of the miscarriage of justice.
Injustice anywhere is the threat to justice everywhere!
My So-called Victory
Since my so-called victory at the European Court of Human Rights against Denmark, many people have asked me why I did not go to court against Denmark for compensation. My barrister Geoffrey Robertson QC (at the time a United Nation’s international Judge) did look into taking out a case in England against Denmark, by first using a Mereva Injunction of some kind. We looked into various possibilities as to seizing assets of the Danish state outside Denmark, even considering seizing aeroplanes of Scandinavian Airline System, as Denmark had shares in the company.
Ultimately, I just left all this as I lived a very comfortable life in London, Zurich and South of France. Moreover, I had found my soulmate Romana, and could not face this horrendous trauma and all the negativity associated with the events in Denmark. Denmark had further indicated, that if I wished I could get a re-trial, it could take years.
I certainly, did not want to live in Denmark for years and suffer all this negativity, also I believed that you can not fight City hall. I had already involved myself with the local amenity group in Mayfair and seen the corruption in Westminster.
Knowing well that such corruption also was present in the Danish bureaucracy. I knew from property developers in Denmark, that a little brown envelope helped to get project and planning permission through the local authorities. In the beginning, I did not believe such talk, but when I later attended various hunts and saw leading members of parliament, local towns, including the mayors and police chiefs, I knew that there could be no doubt about such corruption existed in Denmark. Why should anyone pay for expensive hunts and parties for such people otherwise?
One of the serious questions, I from time to time asked myself, suffering regularly from the deep pains of the solitary confinement and subsequently found to have developed psychiatric damage, which to a significant extent has been caused by the pre-trial solitary confinement predictable mental after-effects. which for entailed for me regularly depression, mood swings and recurring nightmares. I had developed paranoid psychosis symptoms and delusions in my solitary confinement and many other illnesses, feeling extremely nervous and worried because I did believe that other people were trying to harm me.
Should I put a case together against Denmark for this torture, as to Article 3? Something I did initially in August 1980, but the Danish authorities prevented me from proceeding in according to the Convention’s protocol, by holding back and hiding correspondence with the Commission for 26 months. Therefore, making it impossible for me to proceed with this complaint, moreover, when I told the Commission what had happened, they considered that Article 6 was a far more important complaint, as it concerned the whole case and the rights to a fair trial.
Recently, I have learned about my son’s school friend from Herlufsholm, Peter Rohde’s and that he went to the ECHR as to his treatment.
Considering Rohde’s solitary confinement was much different to mine, as it was many years later and the Danish authorities had surrendered to international criticism and condemnation and provided somewhat better conditions for the prisoners in solitary confinement. This meant that pre-trial detainees and Rohde have television and other comforts, ranging from having visits from family and friends, seeing teachers and prison officials. Even a refrigerator/ freezing compartment, a duvet, a pillow, a mirror, a sink, bed linen, a tea-towel and a towel. Further, the use a fitness room, borrow various games, borrow books once a week, occupy themselves with hobby activities, buy goods in the shop, including newspapers, and receive tuition, including school tuition. Also, television was available, which includes access to the local text TV of the prison.
Rohde had also regularly received visits by doctors and nurses, he was attended to twenty-seven times by a prison doctor, and forty-three times by a nurse. Also, during this period, twelve times he had contact with a welfare worker (social worker). Rohde had daily contact with the prison staff when food was dispensed, at outdoor exercise etc., and the applicant’s counsel was a frequent visitor.
I did not have any of this, in fact, no visits at all, once from the priest. It was first when I went on hunger strike, I received regular visits by doctors and nurses and ultimately was moved to the prison hospital. I refused initially to take any tablets or anything the doctors would prescribe as I thought, the could kill me.
Finally, Peter Rohde, as I recall was a top-trained Olympic swimmer with lots of discipline and indeed had attended boarding school with my sons and somewhat used to a much different environment than me when I was arrested. Further, I had my wife and children to worry about and all that happened to my companies and their clients. All this was a torture in itself and even worst all the lies daily published about me and my family in the Danish media.
I wrote the following back in 2011 when I first had this website created.
The objective with making this website, was first to see if I could get people in Denmark, involved in the injustice, to come forward with some facts behind the case and the event. I planned a website in Danish, as many Danes do not read English. I am certain the website would end in miserable failure to find the truth or change people mind as to me and what really took place in Denmark more than 38 years ago. I am not even been sure that I should bother making this website, and it was probably just a vanity project for a washed-up old man, an unfinished task he would use to convince himself that he still had something to do, right up until the moment he died. How can something which happened to me be important? However, it may be to my family and all my grandchildren one day –
Today, with more than another 150,000 people have been born the last 24-hours – just imagining. More people in one month get into this world than the total population of Denmark. How can my case and indeed what happened to be important? My children and grandchildren are healthy, safe and privileged – what do I have to complain of? According to a charity friend, every 3 minutes a girl is forcefully getting married against her will, mostly under the age of 14 years.
Everything has to start with ourselves, our family and community.
I am Not an Innocent Human Being
In reading this website you may get the impression that I am an innocent person – always. No, I am not an innocent person who has never done anything illegal and criminal. I have committed many illegal acts which were, at the time, considered serious and criminal by various countries. At least they were considered criminal at the time and could have landed me a long time in jail if ever found out.
Most of these “illegal and criminal actions” by me were in the sixties and early seventies whilst working with international banks and both private and corporate individuals. All these actions did have fiscal implications and violated countries currency and exchange controls, local tax requirements and even companies’ shareholders rights. Most of these illegal actions were taken with the approval of highly respected legal firms, banks and auditing firms, at the time. If found out, some of my clients could face 10 years in jail or more, even in two cases of death. The clients all relied on total confidentiality and trust.
I actively helped several wealthy Scandinavian to move abroad and take their assets with them. Sometimes I had to fight against “local” lawyers’ interest to hold on to their clients’ money and estates, despite they knew the fiscal benefits for moving their client’s assets.
Trust and Foundations
As a young man, I already in 1965 was introduced to trust and foundations, trusteeship and fiduciary activities, all with a lot of small prints, when the client’s signed. However, I had to serious learn all this, and become quite an expert, so much so that I later become co-trustee for many foundations and acted as fiduciary agent for many. Further, I advised professionally, clients as to Liechtenstein, Panama and Bermuda foundations. My partner in M. Hauschildt et Cie and co-founder with me in 1974 was Bryan Jeeves, who due to the event in Denmark, formed himself the highly respected Jeeves Group which operate all over the world.
As an introducing agent to several Swiss banks, including first Banque Pariente in Geneva and later UBS, Edmund Safra’s Trade Development Bank and sometime later on Bank Landau & Kimche and Bank Julius Bar in Zurich. I very early learnt that most of the bankers recommended establishing a Liechtenstein trust, mostly, looking back, to obtain more annual fees and have a structure in place if something happened, a legal entity they could “sit-on” for years.
At the time, I only received a small fee for the introduction to the banks, later on, it becomes common to receive a share in the bank’s fees and brokerage. After my time, this becomes even more profitable for introducing agents.
Going back to this period I was mostly dealing with the Cayman Island, Bermuda and Bahamas, Jersey, Guernsey and the Alderney Island. The Channel Islands and the Isle of Man – places very good of exploiting their clients and able to charge ridiculous fees for little or no work.
I had very early the same experience with Liechtenstein and Bermuda. Later when working with people like Dr Batliner in Vaduz and Appleby in Bermuda, I started sharing the front end and annual fees, this somewhat kept me “in” on the milking the cow. This becomes normal, especially as I sometimes become co-trustee with the lawyers. This fact saved me when the events took place in Denmark in 1980, however, it also turned out bad for many clients, as lawyers were the alone trustee and able to charge huge fees.
I have just seen (December 2018) that the FCA in the UK has given Santander Bank a fine of £32.8 million fine over probate failings. The FCA states the impact of the failings was:
probate and bereavement processes would stall and remain incomplete, meaning that funds would not be transferred to those entitled to them despite Santander being informed a customer had died; or
certain funds belonging to deceased customers would not be identified and transferred to those who were entitled to them who were unaware of the existence of those funds.
The FCA states that a bank is required to have an effective process for dealing with a deceased customer’s accounts and investments from notification of death to the transfer of funds to those who are entitled to receive them.”
I know for a fact, that in the 1950s and 60s Swiss banks loved when their client died (I am sure they still do) and an estate was created. Because this allowed them to more or less take the money into their own assets, moreover, engage lawyers and authorities, legitimising their actions, all costing large fees and being paid out of the estate. The procedure for any beneficiary would be so many problems and hassle that few could go through the process, many would expose themselves to going to prison or pay a huge amount of tax.
As to Swiss bank accounts, at the time (as to my experience mid-1960s) it was common to practise for most foreigners to have numbered account, not using their names or even address. They would have to go to the bank and state their account number(shorten to a few digits) thereafter show their signature and passport. Although the bank had a photocopy of the passport, they made sure not to connect the passport to the numbered account, as they later could state they did not know the client.
Going back to the 1930s the Swiss have learned from the attack by the French and German authorities, where clients of Swiss banks was even imprisoned and put to death.
In the 1960s the Swiss banks did not require that the client appointed beneficiaries of the account and the requirement for “paperwork” did not exist, normally only one page. Such numbered account was very profitable for the banks. A client who wanted to appoint beneficiaries, was always recommended to use a judicial structure like a trust, so the bank could take part in a never-ending fees arrangement, moreover, appoint a trustee.
Since clients were always advised not to have any papers related to their account, just in case, it was somewhat very difficult for relatives to come along and claim the assets in the accounts. We had a standard procedure of not accepting anyone and told them first to go to the Embassy in Bern and establish the credential, many did not do this out of fear, and the last thing they wanted was to tell their respective countries that a relative had left money for them in Switzerland.
The Swiss banks defended this advice because most foreigners came from countries where even having a Swiss bank account, could result in that they could be arrested and even executed. In most European countries like Germany, France and Italy, the fiscal authorities were constantly on the lookout and could punish their citizen, very harshly, just to show an example.
During my time, I know of cases where French and German citizen either had to leave their country or face long jail sentences, just because they had a “secret” Swiss Bank account. The fact, that people had established such account, made them vulnerable to blackmail from family members or in case of divorce.
As to the so-called secret Swiss bank account, if a US citizen had an account with substantial sums, the US authorities had ways to approach the weakest senior member of the bank and offer a 40% “finder fee” in addition, protection in US and even a new name and papers, in return for details as to the account. Somewhat similar methods used by the German and other European countries getting criminals to steal data on Swiss and Liechtenstein bank’s clients.
However, through all the years, it did not stop the wealthy families finding ways around such control, to hold on to their assets and estates.
Most offshore structures we established for business clients, was for a client involved with import or export business and we used re-invoicing set-up or quietly moving patents and royalty into offshore entities. This allowed companies and trust hiding the ownership and beneficiaries, allowing royalties to be out, without any tax liability.
Later on, this becomes the case with several large Scandinavian companies, such as Maersk, IKEA and Lego. In the late 1960s a few Scandinavian and German companies were able to use the out-of-site offshore companies to buy “themselves out” locally at arm’s length, no one ever was prosecuted or found out at the time.
What later made a big difference in the world of tax evasion and avoidance was when foreign exchange trading become common among international companies. This truly allowed to swift profit and losses, wherever required, it becomes even better when derivatives become an instrument of preference.
Justitslig? – What do this word mean in English? Literary translated, it means a human corps left from an injustice. Dead, due to injustice and a corps cannot be brought back to life. The Germans use justizmord, the Danes the word justitsmord.
My first defence counsel, one of the most experienced criminal lawyers in Denmark, Jørgen Jacobsen, was just prior to my hunger strike in August 1980, speaking to me. He said that he felt that a “justitsmord” had already been committed in my case. Further, such murder leaves a corps – I said justitslig? Yes, he said, as a corps cannot be revived.
That first day the Bagmandspolitiet and the Danish authorities arrested you and closed your business, a judicial murder took place, and since then, a corps has been left to rot.
Like I told you before, injustices takes place in all part of the society. It is a fact, that if there was tens of thousands of people gathered at the Rådhuspladsen (Town Hall Square) and from loudspeaker someone shouted out:”the women over there in the red coat and hat is a slut and a whore”. Most people would believe this and there is nothing that poor woman can do, there and then to disprove the masses impression of her.
Everything they (the Danish authorities) did thereafter, was just to cover up this corpse from injustices, the killing and everything which really took place. This was very simple as they used (misused) their power by fabricating lies and deceit whilst using the willing Danish gutter-press to spread the lies.