12. CHAPTER THE COOLING SYSTEM or THE ENDLESS STORY The economic recession is a fact. Without if and but. The number of lunches is sinking, the people do no not drink so much wine, they rather drink beer. As through some miracle we maintain our turnover. The number of banquets is on the rise, also the clubs like to hold their assemblies on our premises. The mood isn't actually bad, but rather depressed. People are expecting, well, what are they actually expecting? From the "Blick" daily we can read that in the last six month period Swiss people have saved an additional Fr. 19.300.000.000,00. The French people do just the same. Fear about the future. The bank announces a reduction of the mortgage interest of one half of one percent on August 1, 1991. Makes Fr. 6.000,00 a year bonus. Also the interest on the current bank account is down, from 11% if we include the quarterly period fees, to 8,75%. All in all the interest policy of the banks has cost us some Fr. 75.000,00 within the last three years. In the first three years we have invested at least a quarter of a million francs. Financially we stand with our backs to the wall and a knife at the throat. After I have threatened the HOTELA hotheads with a bloodbath we are living in peace. And we only can hope that this is going to remain so. The time, the nerve, the money which are being invested in these quarrels is just unimaginable for the noninvolved observer. And this time, this energy, this money are being used for negative actions. They should be invested for the development of the enterprise, and yet they are barely sufficient to avert its destruction.
At the beginning of April 1993 I received a summons to appear before the Cantonal Supreme Court of Solothurn. Topic: Claim from labor contract. "The parties are requested to appear personally. They can have a lawyer. Date: Tuesday, May 4.1993, 8:15 a.m. In the name of the President The Court clerk illegible So, that was it. The bullshit continued. The next thing I felt was an almost overwhelming fit of rage, followed by a feeling of deep dejection. I am, one may believe it or not, no quarrelsome man, and no paragraph rider who finds in legal finesses the summit of human genius. But I shall fight for our enterprise, for our enterprise and for my existence and for my family's existence. On another page of the summons I could read: "All means of proof are rejected, with the exception of the party hearings." The audience room of the Cantonal Supreme Court, which also serves as Criminal Court, is an imposing room conceived for a number of visitors, with a gallery as in a theatre. The three judges are sitting before their desk. There we also find a young lady and a Court clerk who is supposed to take notes for the record. I sit at a long table which could give place to a number of people. To my right, a couple of meters away there sit Richard and his lawyer. Beat Gerber, Richard's new lawyer, is a pleasant looking young man. Just before the audience he has come over to me and has shaken my hand and cordially greeted me.
Supreme Court Judge FĂŠraud, the Court's President, opens the session: "We are presently treating the legal case Richard Rolf, Cooling and Air Conditioning, Gsteiggasse 26, 4523 Niederwil, Plaintiff and Appellant, presently in his place cession creditors Vidar Watch inc., Industriestrasse 4500 Solothurn, BK Bank in Kriegstetten, 4566 Kriegstetten, W. Manser Fiduciary, Industriestrasse 11, 4500 Solothurn and Beat Gerber, Advocate, Dammstrasse 21, 4500 Solothurn All represented by Beat Gerber, Advocate, Dammstrasse 21, 4500 Solothurn versus Simonin Jean Claude, Restaurant Bahnhof, 2540 Grenchen as Defendant and Appellant, concerning a claim from a labor contract. The President frowned and looked at me: "Mr. Simonin, the disputed sum amounts presently to more than Fr. 13.000,00, including interests and costs. Do you really want to continue?" "Mr. President," I replied, "I would like in the first place to thank this Court for letting me express my point of view for the first time within four years, after 1.450 days, I added pointedly. "It seems to me," I went on, "that the previous instance's judgment is resting exclusively on the declarations of the other party, of the two witnesses Richard Hanspeter and Giger Markus and also on work reports which are obviously false." "Yes;" said the President, "it seems indeed that before the first instance not everything has been legally up to par. Well, Mr. Simonin, tell us now your side of the story..."
And I told at length how things had developed from my point of view. I told about the sloppiness of the workers, about the inflated bill, about my reply to Richard's accusing request, how this reply had been rejected by the first instance on account of legal flaws and "unnecessary offending material", about Lawyer Hoffet, who had understood nothing of the case, about the capital mistake in his petition. I told how I had been dispensed from appearing at the first fateful confrontation with the other party. I told how I had been asked one single question by the President of the first instance, concerning this supposed provisional installation. Just one single question, and only now, four years after the quarrel had started, after 1.450 days, so I insisted, did I have the opportunity to express myself before a Court of Law. The judges hardly ever interrupted, asked now and then a pertinent question. The tone was always polite and correct, or even friendly. For the very first time I had the feeling of being heard, and listened to. I pointed several times to my 19.05.1989 petition and insisted upon the fact that anything that Lawyer Hoffet might have said or written that did not exactly correspond with this petition's contents was to be considered as not valid. At the end of my declaration Judge Montanari asked me: "Mr. Simonin, what happened really in your establishment on August 26, 1988?" "Nothing," I said, "this date says nothing to me. On this weekend nothing happened at all." "Have you telephoned with Plaintiff Richard on that day," he went on asking. "I don't know," I replied, "I simply don't know. On this day absolutely nothing happened. It is possible that I may have called. I cannot deny it. I cannot confirm. I simply don't know."
I saw how President Féraud was perusing my cash book, reading and shaking his head before he pushed the book aside. No, really, on that day, on that weekend nothing particular was recorded. Supreme Court President Féraud turned to Richard, asked very precise questions pertaining to very unprecise work reports, requested a counter declaration. I had trouble understanding Richard. His voice sounded muffled and unsure and he spoke in a low voice, much too low. President Féraud requested from me one last declaration. I pointed out once more that the previous instance's judgment was resting exclusively upon the false declarations of the adverse party. Lawyer Gerber also was requested to make one last declaration. I also had trouble understanding what he said. He spoke too quickly, nervously. All the same I got hold of one sentence: "Mr. Simonin hasn't denied that he has called my client over the phone on August 26, 1988." "Keep talking," either."
I
thought,
"I
haven't
confirmed
it
"Well", said the Court's President, "that would be it. Would you like to be summoned to hear the sentence, Mr. Simonin, or would you prefer having it sent to you?" "Sure," I said, "you can send it. It saves time and money." Lawyer Gerber also accepted. The session was closed. It was nine thirty a.m. The session had also lasted one hour and one quarter. According to my own estimation I must have been talking for at least one hour. I felt happy and elated as I arrived back home, and said to Klara:
"My darling, this time I have been heard! If I didn't make it that one time I don't know anything anymore." The sentence arrived on May 18, 1993, two weeks after the session. It was devastating. The Court knew that I had fired Hoffet on account of his fancy production. I had sent the Court the whole correspondence of the quarrel with the guy. I had made it absolutely plain to the Court that anything that Hoffet might have said or written that did not exactly jibe with my 19.05.1989 petition was of no value at all. On top of this I had sent the Court a number of pictures of the installations, since the Court could not be motioned to visit them. The pictures were clear and eloquent. Nothing had been of any use: The Court sentence rested on Hoffet's work, and on false declarations as well. Whoever has followed the case attentively from the beginning cannot avoid the conclusion that such an array of mistakes and flaws coming from the competent justice instances cannot be ascribed to chance. One thing is certain: The legal instances want to destroy me. I have raised a stink too many a time, and showed those arrogant fat cats their own stupidity. I have to be put out of the way. A few days later there landed a bill from Lawyer Gerber in the house: Fr. 17.500,00 were requested by the dear and likable fellow. This claim meant the end of the establishment. After the first reaction of dismay I reacted fast. Dated May 26, 1993 I wrote a request of public Law to the hands of the Swiss Federal Supreme Court in Lausanne. This petition took a full seven pages and contained twenty means of proof. I pointed out the continuous violation of my civil rights and particularly the fact that all the petitions, means of proof or witnesses were being systematically rejected or even suppressed by the Courts. Also a confrontation with the plaintiff and his witnesses had never been granted.
At the same time I got in touch with the District attorney in Solothurn. On a free afternoon I called every twenty minutes or so in order to obtain this distinguished gentleman on the phone. Each time I was put off: Mr. District Attorney was either absent or just not there, or on the phone or at a meeting. Shortly before five I ran out of patience and told the miss over the phone that I was going to settle the case in self justice if the honorable Mr. Dr. jur. Klaus Koschmann did not care to answer. Three minutes later the man was on line. "Look, Herr Doktor," I said, "I have to lodge a complaint in a criminal case on account of false testimony before Court." "Well," said the learned man, "so you have to go to the police and show the evidence." "Look," I replied, "the evidence is here in the house and I sure can't bring the house to the police station. A police officer has to be commandeered, and it is not for me to order the police around." "Okay", he said, "I'll do it." Fifteen minutes later Police sergeant Burkhardt was in the house and asked for me. Sergeant Burkhardt of the cantonal police is a short and lively man who reminded at the first look of the farmers back home. He asked me pleasantly what it was all about. I explained him the case and asked him to follow me in the kitchen. I showed him the location of the old compressor and the old pipes through the magazine and also the still existing anchors hanging at the cold room ceiling for the old still cooling system. I showed him the new compressors in the little room behind the beer cellar and took down a few of the sheet iron plates from the kitchen mock ceiling to show him the new pipes and also that the real ceiling was in good shape and in order to demonstrate that the mock ceiling was easy to dismantle and to put back together. I showed
him a few more thing and requested him to ask questions if he had any. The whole demonstration had lasted some twenty minutes. At the end Mr. Burkhardt took me to the police station and together we put down to paper the charges of perjury against Richard Rolf on account of false declarations of party before a Court of Law, in application of article 306 of the Penal Code. and against Richard Hanspeter and Giger Markus on account of false declarations of witnesses before a Court of Law, in application of article 307 of the same Code. I signed the documents and they were immediately sent to the District Attorney. That was on Saturday, May 29, 1993 On the police station I was given a form, a so-called "Declaration of plaintiff concerning right to compensation of damage in criminal cases." I requested a Fr. 15.000,00 compensation for the damage caused and sternly requested to be confronted with Richard and his accomplices, in application of article 6.3 of European Human Right Convention. Here is mentioned for the first time this wondrous institution, this supremely Supreme Court of Law which is in charge of bringing throughout Europe the respect for the Law, dignity and morals, order and decency and brotherly love. Reality looks so, from my point of view: The percentage of petitions rejected by Supreme Court in any Canton is about 75%.
a
Cantonal
The percentage of petitions of all kinds rejected by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is definitely higher than 80%. This percentage is definitely higher still with the European Commission on Human Rights. These percentages of rejected requests or petitions are perfectly unrealistic. It is obvious to everyone that a definite percentage of requests - or appeals, or petitions - do not hold water, are ill-conceived or even frankly abusive, in application of article 2 of our Civil Code ( the obvious misuse of
the Law is not protected by the Law). But this percentage can never be that high. Not 80 to 90% of the people who seek redress are fools or cranks. As the great American circus manager Joe Barnum used to say: "There is one born every minute." Sure, but not so many at once. As I wrote this appeal of public Law to the Swiss Supreme Court I was preparing the way to Strasbourg. Not for one minute did I believe that a seven page request with twenty means of proof - twenty-three with the three criminal charges - would elicit more than a tired smile from the gnomes of Lausanne. A mere appeal contests a definite Court decision, and has hardly any chance to be dealt with in Strasbourg, on account of formal considerations. An appeal of Public Law attacks instead the very fabric of the administration of Justice of a given country, influences the legal system. It is an extraordinary legal means. without dilatory effect. At the beginning of June I received the visit of police corporal Hänsli Thomas. I was acquainted with him already, as his wife had been employed by us as a waitress. We are on familiar terms. He seemed impatient and came at once to the point: "Look," he said, "I have here an order from D.A. Koschmann to the effect that I have to control things in your kitchen. I don't see the point. Burkhardt has done this already, what do I want? I cannot record once more what been recorded already." "Sure," I said, "What do you want here now? Surely the police has other things to do than to do a job twice..." Hänsli took a quick decision: "Come along to the police station, we write a protocol together and so is the problem solved." And so we bumped my least one number can
did. head head drive
While climbing at the ceiling. taller than I. that sort of toy
into his sports car I Hänsli is a giant, at How such an oversized I shall never know.
The Supreme Court's sentence left me no respite. How could a canton's highest legal instance play around in such manner with facts of such cardinal importance, with means of proof, with testimonies of parties and witnesses and experts? It was unbelievable, and yet this situation jibed to perfection with Jurist Steinegger's description in the "Bund" daily. Our judges throughout the country are actually fitted with definitely dictatorial competence, they enjoy the total freedom of a court jester. I called the Supreme Court's Deppeler was on the line:
chancery.
Court
clerk
"Look," I said, "would it be possible for me to get the minutes of the Simonin/Richard case of the May 4. session. This judgment isn't up to par, it is resting on Richard's and his accomplices' false declarations, and on a fancy job from my own lawyer." "Well," said the Court clerk, "It seems that you have lost the case and won't accept it." The voice sounded joyous and self satisfied. "Okay, so I am sending the minutes. Would you also like the first session's minutes from District Court?" Two days later the remained speechless.
minutes
were
there.
I
read
and
I always have insisted upon the fact that President Kiefer from district Court had asked one single question. Before that Court I therefore had been granted just one single opportunity to say something. The district Court's minutes related a whole novel, which I was supposed to have told. Truly, there is nothing concrete to be found in these pretended declarations of mine that would run against my 19.05.1989 reply, and should this point be raised once more in a legal proceeding, so this would be my word against the Court's. Quite different was the supreme Court's version:
Actum of Supreme Court of the Canton Solothurn 0f May 4., 1993 Have appeared: 1. Rolf Richard and Lawyer Beat Gerber 2. J.C. Simonin Has been completed Hearing of parties (Excerpts from Court clerk's minutes) The parties proceed essentially complementary declarations:
to
following
SIMONIN. It is true that the overhaul of the complete cooling system took place in three stages. Controversy is only about the bill for the third stage. I basically admit from the Fr. 10.618,00 bill the amount of Fr. 6.300,00, under deduction of the amounts of Fr. 985,30 and 1.072,- so that in reality there remains an amount of Fr. 4242,70. An initial estimation I have never requested as I have assumed that the bill for the second and third stage would be essentially the same as for the first stage. The central cooling compressor collapsed effectively at the beginning of July 1988 already. My lawyer ignored that fact, although I had given him suitable information. He understood absolutely nothing of the affair, that's why I fired him. I have before the first instance already declared that a provisional installation has never existed. RICHARD. I received on August 26, 1988, a Friday, a phone call to the effect that the compressor had broken down. The damage had to be repaired at once, which happened through a provisional installation. The other overhaul stages were completed at that time. That two work reports have not been signed is probably due to the fact that no one was here to sign them. As far as these reports are concerned, they are so-called collective reports: One
starts one day and writes on the following days. The daily reports are kept by the workers. The signed reports are daily reports. SIMONIN. There is at all times one of us around, we are attainable at all times, seven days a week. Strangely the equipment has been installed on Monday, during the weekend nothing happened. RICHARD: I can confirm that the kitchen ceiling has been opened and then closed three times; this for the reasons which I have explained before district Court. Before the new installation could be placed we had to dismantle the old one. SIMONIN: Dismantling was not dismantling which I did myself.
necessary,
except
the
It is also not true that the whole affair was an emergency. It is different with the restaurant counters. There they had no cooling any more, so it was an emergency. For accurate excerpts from minutes, The Court clerk illegible And that was that. I could not comprehend and requested the complete minutes. At the end of June I received answer: "You have requested the "complete minutes". The protocol of hearings has according to 65 lit. d CPO to reflect "the essentials". The minutes sent to you give you the essentials. A further protocol does not exist. We transmit this information and remain With friendly greetings The Court clerk illegible
I could not let this unanswered Granges, Juni 8, 1993 Dear Mr. President, Enclosed herewith you will find the minutes of the latest Court session in the Richard/Simonin case. In these minutes serious material mistakes are to be found: Page 2, 1. paragraph Should read: "I summoned Lawyer Hoffet to our place, explained the situation minutely, showed him the installations. I then entrusted him with my 19.05.1989 reply, and charged him to formulate it within proper delays and in the respect of legal forms, however TO STRICLY RESPECT THE CONTENTS. He understood nothing, that's why I fired him." In the course of the session I have declared again and again that anything that Lawyer Hoffet might have said or written that does not exactly correspond with my 19.05.1989 reply is of no significance at all. I miss this declaration in your minutes. The reply cited of page 6 of judgment is not from me, but from Hoffet' reply. It does not correspond with my 19.05.1989 reply, therefore it is devoid of any value. Upon a Supreme Court's question I have repeatedly affirmed that I had been asked one single question concerning a pretended provisional installation. One single question from President Kiefer. I miss the report in the minutes. On page 6 of judgment we read: "...The call".
defendant
never
We should read however:
denied
having
placed
a
phone
"...The defendant has neither denied nor confirmed the phone call: The defendant cannot remember any particular event on that day." The minutes provided method of work...
demonstrate
a
rather
superficial
I request the Court politely yet definitely to provide the complete minutes of this session. I await the response of the Court with a great amount of interest. Meanwhile I remain, Mr. Court President, With perfect consideration J.C. Simonin Copy - along with the provided minutes to: Swiss Supreme Court, Civil Department 1000LAUSANNE 14 Through this correspondence is confirmed in an impressive manner the assertion of Lawyer Steinegger in the "Bund" daily, according to which the protocols of a Court session are held in definitely more approximate manner than the protocols of a local fanfare. And that the declarations of an unpopular party before a Court of Justice have far less weight than a beer happy discussion in a pub. On June 12, 1993 I received following notice from Lawyer Gerber. "I have been informed that you have lodged a appeal of public Law against the cantonal Supreme Court's decision. I wish to point out that an appeal of public Law is an extraordinary legal means. The Supreme Court's judgment is therefore enforceable. I request you to pay the amount of Fr. 17.484,95 with enclosed P.O. form before the end of June 1993. Otherwise I shall introduce a claim of payment."
On one point the bugger was right: an appeal of public Law is an extraordinary means of recourse and has no dilatory effect upon a Court sentence. On one point however he was wrong, insofar as this appeal of public Law was underlined with three criminal complaints for perjury. I am used to the judicial capers of our Law doctors, to the hodgepodge which is the result of a socalled "free research of justice." But I can stretch my imagination as far as I want, and tickle my fancy to boot, the enforcement of a sentence which is basically resting upon perjury remains for me simply beyond good and evil. On June 23, 1993 I received following letter from the D.A. Your report for false testimony: Dear Mr. Simonin, We are astonished to know that you are not willing to make any declarations before the cantonal police and that you insist upon a personal look by ourselves. So it cannot be done. How the requested investigation is to be conducted is our decision and not yours. From the police report we do not see what testimony could be false and why. You have lost a civil process. It is not suitable to remake this process, transformed into a penal suit. You have to answer clearly the questions asked on the decision enclosed herewith. Should the expected penal suit produce evidence that actually false declarations have been made, so you are entitled to a new civil suit. For a successful conclusion of the penal suit your cooperation is indispensable. Precise answers from you to our questions are part of this. If the necessity of a personal look is demonstrated of course we shall undertake it. To this effect you have to demonstrate the necessity of such a personal look, that is, which false declaration is to be refuted by that means.
We send the files back to the cantonal police in Granges and hope for your indispensable cooperation. Should it be found to be wanting we shall close the proceeding on account of needy means of proof of said false testimony. With friendly greetings District Attorney Koschmann 09.06.93 E
report
Decision The file goes back to the cantonal police to investigate following points, respectively questions 1. Which declaration of Richard Rolf, Giger Markus and Richard Hanspeter are supposed to be false (precise citation of supposedly false declaration. In which document and on which page are they to be found?) Why are they false? 2. Which are the means of proof (*) destined to document the charge of false testimony (Witnesses, pictures of site, etc)? The witnesses have to be heard, the pictures have to be taken and be added to the file (*)mere assertion of contrary not sufficient. Solothurn, June 15., 1993
The district attorney Illegible
At the end of May, just after I had received the supreme Court's sentence I had lodged a complaint against the Richard brother and Giger. A full three weeks later the D.A. deigned to make me some reproaches. At the end of the month the nice lawyer Gerber was to send a claim of payment. We had no money, and our bank credit was exhausted. We were confronted with an unspeakable case of sloppiness from Koschmann or with an attempt to thwart a criminal suit. Of course I can prove nothing, but Koschmann had evidently gotten from me the name of the adverse lawyer. I for one had got to know in the course of the
conversation that Koschmann and Gerber were at least acquainted. Once more: I can prove nothing, but that a phone call from the one to the other may have been fruitful... Time was running out, but I haven't fallen on my brave typewriter. Dated June 26. I wrote following letter to D.A. Koschmann: False testimony Dear Mr. Koschmann, To your 23.06.1993 letter I reply as follows: An officer of the cantonal police, Mr. Burkhardt, has visited our establishment and has made following observations: 1. The two cooling systems - the old, still cooling system and the new air driven system have absolutely no relationship with each other. It is also false to pretend that the old system had to be dismantled before the new on could be installed. Whoever pretends the contrary is a liar: RICHARD Rolf, RICHARD Hanspeter and GIGER Markus are liars. 2. The mock ceiling which supposedly requires 9 to 11 hours for a disassembly/reassembly is disassembled within minutes. For the reassemblng it takes somewhat more time. Whoever pretends the contrary is a jackass: Diplom Engineer A. FLĂźCKIGER is a jackass. 3. A provisional installation is under the given circumstances a nonsense, and practically not feasible: whoever pretends this also pretends that we find provisional banquets, railway lines or watches... 4. It is practically impossible to "forget" to connect a refrigerator. As cooling specialist it is impossible, as caterer definitely. (I am however willing to admit that I have "forgotten that refrigerator" if the D.A. is willing to admit that
he has been walking in town without his pants on: the bullshit is about that size.) 5. The pipe to the refrigerator in the office behind the counters on the main floor branches out in quite a different direction as the pipe to the kitchen's cold room. It is also mistaken to pretend that the mock ceiling had to be opened "a third time". The ceiling did not have to be opened where the cook is working. The true ceiling is in perfect shape. Consequently it did not have to be repeatedly opened and closed. 6. The installed ventilation is just plain miserably installed. The traces of it are still visible. Richard and his boys have proved to be definite duds in that respect. 7. The installation of a new cooling system required imperatively the removal of a brick wall in the kitchen cold room. This removal had perforce to take place over several days, and the ceiling had to be whitewashed several times. For this reason, and this reason alone the still elements were removed. Eventually the cold room had to be cleansed thoroughly. This interruption of the cold room lasted at least one week. During that time all foodstuffs had to be removed. (This activity took place at the end of July/beginning of August. As has been explained a number of times the old system quit at the beginning or the middle of July, as the restaurant counters were still connected.) 8. At last Police officer Burkhardt has found out that sufficient cooling capacity was existent in the case of a breakdown of the cooling in the kitchen. Consequently that there was no cause for a panicky reaction. All this has been found out by Mr. Burkhardt, sergeant of the cantonal police. I have much respect for, and confidence in the work of the police. At the same time I truly do not see what the visit of another officer could bring more, except more work for just that police. I find it strange and shocking that a police officer has to take upon his free time to
complete a file while a D.A. feels too distinguished to drive twelve kilometers for a personal look. Answer to question No. 1: All the assertions contained in 19.04.1989 against me are nothing but vulgar lies.
lawsuit
Means of proof: 19.04.1989 lawsuit. These assertions have been thoroughly dismantled in my 19.05.1989 response to District Court. This response was rejected by the Court on account of formal flaws and also on account of "unnecessarily offending contents". I requested a lawyer to formulate this response adequately and within delays, however to respect strictly the material contents. The lawyer did a fancy job with an enormous material mistake. But at least the form was adequate... Means of proof: Reply Simonin, 19.05.1989 Decision District Court, 22.05.1989 Reply Hoffet, 12.07.1989 Untrue are in the 30.11.1989 session the declarations: "the work in the kitchen was an emergency, etc..." further" the defendant has only removed parts of the old cooling system..." In Egger's lawsuit we find however, page 5, paragraph 6: " the defendant broke down a brick wall. This had nothing to do with the cooling..." After this brilliant demonstration we presently wonder why the distinguished jurists are so much against taking a personal look... The same unreliable assertions are to be found in the May 16. District Court session. Means of proof: Session 30.11.1989
Report FlĂźckiger Protocol of session 16.05.1991 Answer to question No. 2 My response dated 19.05.1989 is the core of my defense. I have charged a lawyer to rewrite it within delay and according to form, however to strictly respect the contents. He did not do it and got fired. I sent this document to the cantonal Supreme Court. The cantonal Supreme Court took it unchanged to the files. Before the cantonal Supreme Court I expressed myself as follows: "This document contains the only truth. Anything which Lawyer Hoffet may have said or written that does not exactly correspond with this document has to be considered as null and void..." The 04/18.05.1993 sentence of the Cantonal Supreme Court rests upon Hoffet's production, which I have completely disavowed. I also have sent 10 pictures to the Supreme Court. I have demonstrated with cold logic that the old system did not quit at the end of August, but much earlier, at the beginning or possibly in the middle of July. I have requested Richard to prove that he was present during that period. The letter, the pictures have been suppressed by the Court. Means of proof: Letter to Supreme Court, 02.12.1991 In my 19.05.1989 response two witnesses are cited: ASKAN, Mehmet, an employee SIMONIN-GERBERR, Klara They did not get summoned. Also is on record: That I have been dispensed from appearing on the 28.09.1989 confrontation with the other party, so that I
could not occasion.
answer
the
patent
lies
proffered
on
that
Generally speaking it can be said that every means of proof, witnesses, petitions or documents which I may have produced have been basically rejected, distorted or purely and simply suppressed. Lawyer Hoffet has requested twice a personal look by the judges. He hasn't even received an answer. The D.A.'s refusal to take this personal look violates my civil rights for the fourth time, such as they are guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. I have a great amount of confidence in police work. I know that the officer in charge will do his duty correctly and thoroughly. I also know that his work is not going to be taken into consideration. It will be of no importance, because the Ladies and Gentlemen of the Courts have decided that I had to pay. I'm a rebellious guy, and such types as I am are to be shown where they belong. Therefore I declare myself out of law if this confrontation, this personal look in presence of a representative of the Law and of a clerk taking up a protocol which can be seen and signed by all parties, does not take place. Any claim of payment coming from RICHARD or his legal successors shall mean the immediate killing of RICHARD, and of at least one judge involved in this mess. With definitely friendly greetings J.C. Simonin Copy to: Cantonal Supreme Court, Administrative 1, 4500 SOLOTHURN Lawyer Beat Gerber, Dammstrasse 21, 4500 SOLOTHURN (each with a .38 cal. bullet) And also (without bullet) To 25 members of cantonal Parliament chosen at random To cantonal police, 2540 GRANGES
To this letter to Koschmann I joined a .38 cal. bullet. I had never distributed so much ammunition thus far. I found that the whole thing was slowly but surely getting into money. On the other hand, the members of the Honorable Society who were reaching for our hard earned money had to be made to understand that there would be corpses if they tried to enforce the Supreme Court's sentence. I think that they got the message all the same. Be it as it may, on July 2. I got the whole thing back from the Supreme Court, together with a short notice: "You transmitted to the Court a copy of correspondence to D.A. together with a round of ammunition. We send you back the whole thing: We do not accept any correspondence which contains ammunition." President of Penal Court R. Walter, Supreme Court Judge Dated July 7., 1993 there came the Swiss Supreme Court's sentence: WHEREAS 1. Jean Claude Simonin, who is managing the Railway restaurant in Granges has entrusted Rolf Richard with the overhaul of the cooling system. The bill for the third stage to the amount of Fr. 10.618,00 has not been paid. Rolf Richard sued Jean Claude Simonin for the payment of the sum and interest. The District Court Solothurn-Lebern and on 04./18. May the supreme Court of Solothurn upheld the claim, which the defendant admitted in second instance to the amount of Fr. 4.242,70. The defendant has lodged against the supreme Court decision a appeal of Public Law with the request for cancellation. No hearings have been held. 2.In an appeal of Public Law there have to be clearly indicated which constitutional rights have been violated. The appellant criticizes the administration of proof and the manner of proceedings of the cantonal
supreme Court without questioning the conclusions. His description exhausts itself in the description of the proceedings from his point of view. This request is not up to the requirements of article 90.1 lit b of Organization Law. Sentence 1. The appeal of Public Law is not to be taken into consideration. 2. The legal costs of Fr. 500,00 are to be paid by appellant. 3. No party indemnity. 4. Communication Court.
to
The President illegible
parties
and
to
cantonal
Supreme
The Court clerk illegible
So, voilĂ . I'll take any bet that the gnomes of Lausanne haven't read my request to the end. First of all Hoffet has definitely admitted a certain amount before the district Court. It is plain that Richard has executed a certain job in our house, which has to be compensated... Second, in this appeal of mine three criminal charges which have been listed as still being with the D.A. in Solothurn are lacking. They have not been requested at all. The very real possibility that a Supreme Court judgment is resting upon perjury doesn't bother our distinguished jurists in the least. But the form of a request does, and how! Majestically does the world go down the drain... I was prepared for this rejection. Long before this decision had been sent I had prepared in French and to the attention of the European Commission on Human Rights in Strasbourg the following APPEAL Against decision of Swiss Federal Supreme Court:
PLAISE À LA COMMISSION (May it please the Commission) To admit that in the present file submitted to its kind attention: Article 6.1 of the European Convention on Human Rights is being systematically violated by all involved legal instances. And to admit that Article 6.3 of same Convention also is being systematically violated by every legal instance. In formal respect The demonstration is being made that the appeal of Public Law sent to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court is explicitly resting upon those articles. Those articles are definitely mentioned on page four of my request. Therefore I do not quite understand the sense of the second paragraph of the Federal Court's sentence... As I set down this document I took contact with the district attorney's office in Solothurn with the intent of filing criminal charges against plaintiff Rolf Richard on account of false declaration of party in application of article 306 of Penal Code and criminal charges for false declarations of witnesses in application of article 307 PC. D.A. Koschmann has sent a police official to certify the veracity of the charges. This police officer has done just that. He has taken me to the police station and there we have filed three criminal charges. The police officer has forwarded the documents at once. This same D.A. presently blames me for my lack of cooperation with the police and suppresses or refuses to handle - it amounts to the same - these charges, which are an integral part of my request to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. Along with the present document whose copy is sent to the Solothurn Supreme Court I wish to institute criminal proceedings against D.A. Klaus Koschmann on account of misuse of authority in application of article 312 PC, suppression of penal action in application of article
305 PC. These are crimes which are automatically prosecuted as soon as they are known to a public official . In material respect I have nothing to add to my request to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court. I take the liberty however to join the correspondence with D.A. Koschmann. The cantonal Court's sentence is largely resting upon the work of Lawyer Hoffet, which I have disavowed to the extent that it did not fit with my 19.05.1989 reply, and upon the false declarations of Plaintiff Richard Rolf and witnesses Richard Hanspeter and Giger Markus. We are here dealing with primitive lies, easy to discover even at a glance. The involved Justice instances as well as the D.A. refuse an inspection on the site which would expose the culprits. It is this a denial of justice which endangers the very existence of our establishment. For this reason I have taken the liberty, in application of article 34 of our Penal Code to refuse any payment of the requested sum as long as the personal inspection of the site by a public official hasn't taken place. I have expressly warned against enforcing this sentence, an attempt that would end in bloodshed. I am still hoping for human justice to take place and entrust you this file with the request that you may find a decent solution. With perfect consideration, J.C. Simonin The date was July 28, as I put this opus to paper. We had closed the place on account of holidays. I just had received the Federal Court's judgment - dated July 7. The day after already that thing was on its way to
Strasbourg. This is what we unbearable easiness of writing."
may
call
"the
almost
We badly needed this vacation, Klara and I. We literally craved for sleep, rest, relaxing. I felt just tired, morally as well as physically. Seven days work every week is a lot, quite a lot. We have good and honest personnel who has been mostly for several years in our pay. That we do not have significant problems with the help is certainly our merit, the result of a sensible policy in this matter. But we are in a financial bottleneck. The bank has announced a reduction of mortgage interests for August and then for October, But these measures won't be of any practical consequence before a number of months, possibly not before next spring. We enjoyed this vacation at home. To sleep until one wakes up, to stay in the feathers until one gets up, no to know what one is going to do the next five minutes. We undertook day trips, once in the mountains, once by the lake, once over the border. A wonderful, restful vacation. On Wednesday August 1, I was still in the feathers at about 8:00 A.M, as Klara said to me: "Hey, downstairs there are two policemen, they want to talk to you." Well, there we get up, walk downstairs and open the door. And just at a stroke we are surrounded by six very young police officers and an older police officer shows his badge and a search warrant. They are all here, he explains to me, to search the house for firearms. On top of this there is a complaint against me on account of compulsion. I smile sweetly and greet them all heartily. I explain to them that I also have a complaint on account of perjury, which I have filed and whether they do not want to follow me to the kitchen. The chief explains courteously but firmly that they are here only for my gun and nothing else. I just laugh.
I walk back to the apartment with the whole bunch behind me. I go quietly to the living room and point to the gun hanging at the wall as a decoration. I sit down at the table, a young guy facing me. The others look for more guns, evidently find nothing. Half an hour goes by. With the time that thing deems me a bit silly. I tell the young guy facing me: "Look, if you want to file a criminal charge against me you might as well do it now. I ain't gonna sit here all day. We have a vacation. Get moving." He nods understandingly and calls a colleague. I walk over to the office and take the heavy file along. We get downstairs. Klara is in a rather ugly mood. She is arguing with the youngsters. I ask if he wants to file the charge here. Eventually I go along with one of them to the police station. Klara will tell me later that the whole bunch has dissolved into thin air just after we have left. We find ourselves in a room of the police station. The young police officer Gunzinger is the only one present whom I happen to know. He is sitting in front of an up to date typewriter. I complain about thirst. They offer me a cup of coffee at once. I'd rather have some water. Immediately a bottle of soda water is served. Service is not quicker at our place! The questioning begins: "As you certainly know, Mr. Simonin," says Gunzinger, "you are entitled to legal assistance at any stage of the proceeding." "Yes," I say, "but I won't make any use of it. If the legal instances are correct, I shan't need any lawyer. And if they are corrupt, and I rather believe that, then no lawyer on earth can be of any assistance." Gunzinger writes: "...can be of any assistance."
"You have sent D.A. Koschmann a .38 cal. bullet with the threat to kill if he did not do what you wanted?" "Well," I reply, "it isn't exactly so. In point of fact I have sent three bullets, one to Koschmann, one to Supreme Court, and one to Lawyer Gerber. The Supreme Court has sent back its bullet, which demonstrate that these people aren't worth a shot of powder." "Why did you do that?" "I did it in accordance with article 34 of the Penal Code, and with article 52.3 of the Code of Obligations. The Supreme Court's sentence is resting upon false testimony. The delay for the sentence's enforcement is running out at the end of the month. I have filed criminal charges in due time. This criminal charge of mine has been willfully suppressed by Koschmann. The Supreme Court sentence resting upon perjury means bankruptcy for us. I could not act differently." A young man sitting next to me interrupts: "Why should Koschmann be in such a hurry? Think of it, Mr. Simonin, I frequently have to handle cases which are pending for more than two years ." "My friend," I give him to ponder, "this case here has been dragging for more than four years. With a bare minimum of intelligence and reason it could have been settled in half a day. But because a tired justice officer isn't able to remove his tired ass from his tired stool this has come so far. This State is morally bankrupt, before it goes materially bankrupt." "Look," he tries to fend off, "you have your methods in your establishment. Justice doesn't tell you how to run your place. Consequently you don't have to tell Justice how to run its business." "Well" I reply, "Justice sure doesn't tell how much salt I should put into the soup. My orders are given me by my employees, my guests and my suppliers. And supposing I were running my place the way the Administration
generally speaking and Justice in particular are running their business, I sure as hell could file for bankruptcy within three months." The youngster grins embarrassed. The tone is perfectly correct and even friendly. The hearing continues: "Do you confirm your threats?" "Yes, definitely. It is my last defense in front of the arbitrariness. As you know I for one have filed a criminal charge against Koschmann." "Yes,", Gunzinger exclaims, "I sure have never seen any such thing!" The hearing comes to a close. The youngster - his name is Gabbi - takes off. I also want to go. Gunzinger holds me back: "I still have to take your particulars," he says. There follow: Family name, first name, date and place of birth, schooling and professional training, knowledge of foreign languages, criminal record, possibility of guardianship, physical and mental infirmity, also in the family. Hobbies: (shooting, specialized on moving targets) Occasional remarks to close, under miscellaneous? "Yes, one question: What's the difference between a whore and a Justice official? Answer: a whore stands up to that which she is doing, although she gets laid. Such a simple affair as this has produced through the arrogance, the stupidity, and possibly the corruption of the Justice administration a maximum of hatred, contempt and expenses." Gunzinger writes dutifully:
"...hatred, contempt and expenses." The show is up. I stand up and take my leave. On this wonderful vacation day of August 1993 the State has dropped its mask and showed a grimacing face. Dated August 24. I received from the D.A.'s office following notice: Decision To be communicated to Plaintiff: Simonin J.C., Bahnhofstrasse 54, 2540 GRANGES Defendant: Richard R., Gsteiggasse 26, 4523 NIEDERWIL The criminal charge lodged by J.C. Simonin on May 29., 1993 against R. Richard cannot be upheld. Justification: A sentence of guilt is excluded a priori. A culprit can only be arraigned in accordance with article 306 PC IF HE HAS BEEN DULY SWORN IN AND RENDERED ATTENTIVE TO THE PENAL CONSEQUENCES OF LIES. In casu this condition is missing. " The District Attorney lic. jur. T. Blaser The refusal of the investigating authorities to indict Rolf Richard is morally questionable and legally perfectly regular. A party to a civil lawsuit can be prosecuted only if it has been duly sworn in. And according to my experience this is practically never done. On the other hand I have filed criminal charges against Richard Hanspeter and Giger Markus as well, for perjury as witnesses. And a witness is always sworn in and rendered attentive to the penal consequences of false testimony. Of these two criminal charges we shall never hear again. They have been just simply suppressed.
Dated September 3, I found it useful to send following lines to the European Commission on Human Rights: "The request submitted to the Commission's benevolent attention concerns actually quite a simple problem, a claim from a labor contract. The legal instance in charge of this problem could, and also should, in application of article 6.1 ECHR, proceed as follows: The Justice official reads attentively Richard's lawsuit dated 12.04.1989 and my response this lawsuit, dated 19.05.1989 (the one with the formal flaws and the "unnecessarily offending contents.) 1 hour Summons the parties along with their lawyers on site, controls the installations 1 hour Confronts 1 hour
the
parties'
Solothurn/Granges 1/2 hour
both
versions
of
ways,
the 25
facts km
Writes an adequate report 1 hour An affair which could be settled by one single Justice official within less than half a day has thus far mobilized at least 20 Justice officials from District Court Cantonal Supreme Court Swiss Federal Supreme Court District Attorney's office as well as police
presently European Commission on Human Rights has cost several ten thousand francs in legal expenses through this threatened our enterprise's existence has poisoned our lives for the past five years and elicits from the undersigned and his wife an almost irrepressible need to murder someone. This method of proceeding is typical of the Swiss Justice administration. I am able to produce at least two definitely immoral and illegal Court sentences whose enforcement would have meant the end of our enterprise, if I had not proffered serious murder threats towards the Authorities. It is therefore the whole of administration which is concerned mine.
the Swiss Justice by this request of
Yours very truly, J.C. Simonin Dated September 8., I got notification from the D.A.'s office that the case against me had been completed. I could give my opinion about it within ten days. I renounced, but informed the ECHR of this development. I then received a notice from the ECHR: "I acknowledge herewith your letters from July 29, August 26, September 3. and 19. (with additions) and would like to point out that the prime condition of the acceptance of a request lays in the exhaustion of all national legal means of appellation... Your request before the Swiss Federal Supreme Court has been rejected on account of formal flaws... Therefore the national means of appellation are not exhausted .." So, the ladies and gentlemen in Strasbourg were painstaking about the form, I thought. And why not? They takes things seriously, and certainly they are right...
And so at the end of September I wrote following letter to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court: Supreme Court Sentence of July 7., 1993 Ladies and Gentlemen, Enclosed herewith you will find the ECHR reply to my appellation against your July 7., 1993 sentence. I gather from your sentence that the violation of my constitutional rights was not expressly mentioned: According to my point of view this appeal of Public Law was based upon following articles: Art. 2 Civil Code: Dealing in Good Faith Art. 3 Civil Code: Good Faith Art. 4 Civil Code: Judges' Latitude of Judgment Art. 8 Civil Code: Administration of Proof Art. 4 Federal Constitution: Equality before the Law Art. 6.1 European Human Right Convention: Right to a Fair Trial Art. 6.2 of same: the Right to Defend One's self Art. 6.3 of same: The Right upon a Confrontation with Accuser. It is actually true that these articles are not expressly mentioned in my appeal. Article 6.2 ECHR guarantees every person's right to defend himself. For concrete, financial reasons I cannot entrust this affair to a lawyer. Therefore I politely request the Federal Supreme Court to indicate me how precisely this appeal of Public Law should look like in order to be dealt with." There followed in this four page letter the express mention of Richard's and his accomplices' act of perjury, and how the report against Richard Rolf had been turned down and the reports against the others had been suppressed. Also of the report against D.A. Koschmann on account of misuse of authority and suppression of penal action, because he preciselyhad suppressed these criminal charges.
As a conclusion I wrote: "As a legal tyro I am anxious to respect the customs and regulations in use in the administration of Justice. It is my real wish to have this appeal of Public Law presented according to form. The Federal Supreme Court is requested to kindly provide adequate information." A copy of this letter was sent to Strasbourg, along with following notice: Dear Mr. Villiger, Enclosed herewith you will find a copy of my request to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court, as a reaction to your September 27. letter. It is my opinion that the Supreme Court has now the opportunity to settle the case by itself. Of course I am ready and willing to bring about some formal changes to my May 26. appeal. Rules have to be respected. It won't change anything to the factual description of the case. The form of a request is certainly important, and a correct procedure certainly play a great role in the settlement of a given case. The form of a request can however under no circumstance be more important than its contents, and the procedure should never be used to conceal the truth With perfect consideration and friendly greetings, J.C. Simonin Dated October 6. my request in Strasbourg was acknowledged. Along with the letter I found a printed form in which I had to present my case against Switzerland. The form had to be returned within six weeks. I was rendered attentive to the fact that all correspondence with the Commission had to remain strictly confidential. Dated October 8. I was notified by the Swiss Federal Supreme Court that this distinguished assembly had closed the Richard docket. Information concerning putative
formal flaws were not transmitted. Next time I would have to hire a lawyer. Period. , And so, we find the Swiss Federal Supreme Court hiding behind the formal flaw in a request in order to protect the criminal deed of knowingly false testimony through sworn in witnesses before a Court of Law. This revelation sounds terrifying, it is terrifying, but the facts are there for all to see, demonstrated, uncontestable. The request form of the European Commission on Human Right is certainly an interesting document. It contains eight pages and is in its concept very clear and comprehensive. Page 2 is dedicated to the identity of the parties: Simonin versus Switzerland, let's see whether the chances are equal. Page 3 requires the description of the facts. One is requested to tell the story of one's sorrow. Page 4 is dedicated to the articles of the Convention which are supposed to have been violated. Page 5 lists the suite of sentences on national level which have preceded this request. Page 6 asks about the sense and purpose of the request, which national sentences are to be recalled, which measures are to be taken in order to improve the national administration of Justice. Page 7 contains the list of all the means of proof, the evidence. Page 8 asks for the preferred work language, English or French, and requires to keep the proceeding confidential, and gives the choice to remain or not anonymous with regards to the public information. Place
Date
Signature
Again a letter with this document. Granges, October 11., 1993
Request to the Commission Dear Mr. Villiger, Enclosed herewith you will find the filled form with my request at the care of the Commission. I have filled this form to the best of my knowledge and ability. I think that all means of proof have been provided. Should any means of proof be unexpectedly missing, so I consider it as my duty to replace it at once. It is perfectly plain that this request is lodged to serve my interests and those of my family. But this request is also meant to help the interests of those suffering from arbitrariness and who do not have the knowledge and the means to fend for themselves. To those people also this request is dedicated. The legal system of a country is the conscience of just that country. And whenever this conscience happens to fail people can take off and give one another an appointment in Sarajevo, or in Beirut. With perfect consideration and friendly greetings, J.C. Simonin Dated October 20., I received the notice that my request had been registered under the number 22795. As the date of input figured July 28, 1993, date of my first invoice. Once more it was impressed upon me that the whole correspondence with the Commission had to remain confidential. The Commission was holding its session in closed assembly. I didn't quite see the reason for all this secrecy, but if they wanted it that way, so should it be. I was glad to come to my right at last. The mass of evidence against the Solothurn administration of Justice was so crushing that I did not doubt a single second of the happy outcome of the struggle.
Wasn't it so, that I had been dispensed from appearing before the judge in a proceeding of crucial importance for the continuation of the lawsuit? There three guys had spread enormous lies, and I had been denied opportunity to counter them. Wasn't it so, that two witnesses cited in my 19.05.1989 reply - my own wife Klara and an employee as counterparts to Richard's brother and his employee - had never been summoned? Wasn't it so, that a personal inspection which would have laid bare the adverse party's blatant lies once and for all and within a few minutes had been repeatedly denied? Wasn't it so, that pictures of the installations and a critical letter dated December 2, 1992 had been suppressed by the Cantonal Supreme Court? Wasn't it so, that the report of a sergeant of the cantonal police, and criminal charges for perjury against two persons had disappeared without traces? Wasn't it so, that Court protocols of District Court and Supreme Court had been gerrymandered? With the District Court's protocols it was not evident, with the cantonal Supreme Court this was absolutely flagrant. Wasn't it so at last that a very simple affair which should have been settled within a couple of days had been poisoning our existence for years and had been endangering the substance of our enterprise during all that time? All these facts are so well documented that it appears impossible to a normal individual that they could remain ignored. Under these premises a lawsuit has to be won, the outcome is as certain as death or taxes. Dated October 26., 1993 I received a Subpoena in penal case on account of compulsion and violence and threats towards officials
On Monday, November 29., 8:15 a.m. Solothurn, administrative Building II, Main floor, Chamber 5. To the main proceedings My eye! The cited putative compulsion is an integral part of my request to ECHR. I have, in application of art. 34 PC and after the arbitrary dealings of the Courts have forced me to have recourse to this repulsive methods, done whatever I could in order to preserve my own goods. To put it differently, had D.A. Koschmann fulfilled his duty as public official and gentleman, I'd never have used that sort of method. Koschmann sh8ould be indicted on account of misuse of authority and contempt of the Law, and not I on account of compulsion. It is contrary to reason that two legal instances on two different levels of jurisdiction deal with the same case. Should I be sentenced in District Court on account of this affair, so I shall appeal to Cantonal and Federal Supreme Courts until the case comes to rest where it is resting already, namely the European Commission on Human Right. The national legal instances are prejudiced in this affair. This is a question of elementary logic. Where's the beef? The logical attitude is to go to this session and to declare the Court as prejudiced. To refuse any dealing , period ! No sooner said than done: on that fateful morning I find myself in chamber N°. 5 of Administration Building II. Klara has come along: I want a witness. Also I have taken a tape recorder: The gerrymandered protocols are not to be given another chance. The judge is a lady, Mrs. Ida Salvetti. I put conspicuously the tape recorder in front of me. The lady judge's reaction is immediate:
"Tape recorders are prohibited in a Court room." "I know," I reply, "but the last time I took part to a Court session the minutes have been so badly manipulated that I am going to protect myself." The lady judge orders in a severe tone of voice: Put this tape recorder away! prohibited in a Court session!"
Tape
recorders
are
"Look," I say, "this is no Court session to start with. Simply due to the fact that you're prejudiced. This affair is integrating part of a request of mine before the European Human Rights Commission in Strasbourg, and no case can be simultaneously dealt with through two legal instances..." "Oh, that way," she says. "I request you to leave the room and to wait outside." I stand up, and Klara in the spectator row does the same. The lady judge says to me: "And turn this tape recorder off!" I turn down the tape recorder and bring it to her desk. Klara and I leave the room. After five minutes or so we are called back into the room. The lady judge says sternly: "The fact that you have an affair hanging in Strasbourg does not make this Court prejudiced." "Oh yes, it does," I reply, "You are prejudiced. And now I go. That's enough." Klara and I leave the room. Dated January 7, 1994 there lands a Decision The request for cancellation of Court proceedings by J.C. Simonin dated 29.11.1993 concerning Judge Ida Salvetti is rejected in application of art. 99 GoG. (what's that, GoG?)
Justification: the applicant brings no objections against the person of the Judge, but against the Court. The applicant may feel free to bring his objections in the course of the appellation procedure. The Court's President Dr. D. Wormser In the same mail another subpoena to another session on February 2., 1994, 10:00 a.m., in Solothurn. I shall not go. Those people know exactly that the whole affair is an integrated part of a request presently hanging in Strasbourg. I have been forced to resort to these perfectly repulsive methods on account of the continuous denial of justice of the Solothurn Justice instances. Well, is this point of view accurate? There is from my point of view one possibility to check this opinion: To ask the Commission. And so I asked the Commission following questions: "1.Is a national legal instance empowered to pass judgment upon an affair which is an integrating part of a request hanging before the Commission? Or, to put it differently: Can a case under such circumstances be handled by two legal instances simultaneously? 2. What attitude should I adopt with regard to the Court? 3. How can I lodge before a legal instance which is judge as well as party an appellation against a guilty sentence which is as certain as the Amen after Mass? Many thanks for a quick answer." The Commission's reply came with the November 15.,1993 mail: "I acknowledge your letter and inform you that it has been joined to the file."
Fabulous! Compared with the good Dr. Villiger the Sphynx of Egypt is a yakking monkey. There we find a legal tyro seeking information in a legal matter which is actually rather logical. One wonders again and again whether the requests presented to the Authorities by a plain citizen are being read at all, regardless of their contents. Dated February 4., 1994 we find following Preliminary Sentence Against Simonin J.C. geb. 1934, Innkeeper, Bahnhofstrasse 54, 2540 Granges. On account of compulsion and violence and threats against officials. The Court has admitted in application of art. 181, 58 and 63 PC, art. 31ff and 137 of Code of Penal Procedure: 1. Simonin Jean Claude is acquitted of accusation of violence and threat against public official. 2. Simonin Jean Claude is found guilty of compulsion, committed on June 25, 1993, and sentenced to three weeks in jail. 3. The confiscated objects (Revolver and ammunition) go to the police for further use. 4. The process costs to the amount of Fr. 300,00 are charged to J.C. Simonin. Legal means: Appellation 10 days delay. The Court clerk illegible The Courts also suppress, they don't publish a word about the fact that this affair is also hanging in Strasbourg. They totally disregard that fact. The count of arbitrary is all the more flagrant since the criminal charges filed against Richard Hanspeter and Giger Markus had disappeared from the scene. Truly, the
judges were setting themselves above the Law, they were the Law. It is perfectly clear that I have written murder threats in that famous 26.06.1993 letter. The threats have been taken out of their contexts, the police statements, as related in the letter have been suppressed by Mrs. Salvetti. That's the way our Courts are working. I wrote a few more letters to the Cantonal Supreme Court as well as to Strasbourg. It hardly makes sense to transcribe those letters. They are the cries for help of a man who has come under the wheels of a dreadful machinery, a terrifying mixture of Kafka and Punch and Judy. It only remains to await the decision of the European Commission on Human Rights. The facts are so clear, the incompetence of the Swiss administration of Justice so flagrant that the Commission cannot but set things in their proper light. And at last, yes at last there comes the Commission's Judgment: COUNCIL OF EUROPE
CONSEIL DE L'EUROPE
EUROPĂ„ISCHE MENSCHENRECHTSKOMMISSION The identity of author of request can be published. DECISION OF COMMISSION Concerning admissibility of request No. 22795/93 of Jean Claude Simonin versus Switzerland The European Commission on Human Right, consisting of a committee of three members in application of art. 20.3 of the Convention relative to Human Rights and basic liberties has in its March 3. 1994 session in the Council Chambers in the presence of F. Ermacora, Chairman of Committee Mrs. G.H. Thune
F. Martinez M.K. Rogge, Committee Secretary decided unanimously: The Commission has examined the above mentioned request along with the means of proof. However, insofar and to the extent that the affirmations have been controlled the Commission has found no evidence of the violation of the basic Rights and liberties as they are described in the Convention and its annexes. Consequently the request is rejected in application of article 27 of said Convention. In consequence the Commission declares: THE REQUEST IS IRRECEVABLE Committee Secretary K.Rogge
Committee Chairman F. Ermacora
VoilĂ : That's all. That also the end of this report in its original German version. There are further developments. I suppose that they may of some interest to the reader. This is a never ending story, and it also may a stern warning to those of us who - as I have - thought once that Democracy and a State of Law were blessings acquired once and for all and to be taken for granted.