Tweet
TURKEY INTERFERES IN LAWSUIT AGAINST GERMAN BANKS ON GENOCIDE ASSETS
By Harut Sassounian, Publisher, The California Courier
AZG Armenian Daily
05/04/2007
Defying all acceptable legal norms, Turkey's ambassador to the
U.S., Nabi Sensoy, recently sent a highly inappropriate letter to
U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow (Federal Court), asking her to
dismiss a lawsuit by Armenian plaintiffs against the German Deutsche
Bank and Dresdner Bank. A copy of this previously undisclosed letter
was obtained by this writer.
In a class action lawsuit, filed by Yeghiayan & Associates; Kabateck,
Brown, Kellner, and Geragos & Geragos, Armenian plaintiffs had accused
the two German banks of concealing and preventing the recovery of
assets, which were deposited by Armenians in these banks "prior to
World War I and the Armenian Genocide." The plaintiffs had further
alleged that the banks "accepted looted assets, forcibly taken by
the government of the Ottoman Turkey during World War I and the
Armenian Genocide."
Ever since the filing of this lawsuit in 2004 (amended in 2006), these
German banks have done everything possible to have it dismissed. They
have challenged the constitutionality of the law passed by the
California Legislature, which extended the Statute of Limitations,
and created standing for plaintiffs to sue the German banks and other
institutions until 2016. In their attempt to counter the charge that
they are the beneficiaries of ill-gotten gains, the German banks,
through their legal counsel, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, have
claimed that the California law "is an unconstitutional encroachment
on the federal government's exclusive power over foreign affairs."
It now appears that in order to back up their claim, the German
banks have succeeded in getting Turkey to instruct its ambassador to
the U.S. to send a letter to the Judge Morrow telling her that the
District Court is interfering in a matter involving U.S.-Turkish
relations. This modern-day German-Turkish collaboration reminds
one of the alliance forged some 90 years ago between the German and
Turkish governments during the Armenian Genocide. By reviving this
unholy union, the German banks hope to keep their "loot," while the
Turkish government can continue to cover up the genocide and attempt
to preempt any future claims against Turkey itself.
However, the German banks and the Turkish government apparently were
oblivious to the fact that by writing a letter directly to the Federal
Judge, the Turkish ambassador was interfering in a judicial process
to which the Turkish side is not a legal party.
It is noteworthy that the Turkish Ambassador's letter, dated February
23, 2007, came on the heels of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul's latest
visit to Washington, leading one to speculate that the Ambassador may
have been pressured into this improper act by his political superiors,
possibly against the advice of his American attorneys. It is noteworthy
that, during the court hearing on February 27, 2007, the German banks'
attorney disclosed that David Saltzman, the attorney for the Turkish
Embassy, had been in close communication with him for several years
since the lawsuit was first filed.
In his letter to Judge Morrow, Amb. Sensoy wrote: "I am deeply
concerned that the plaintiffs have asked you to sit in judgment on
Turkey's sovereign acts carried out within its territory, from which I
would request that you refrain. Specifically, the plaintiffs have made
allegations that require this court to delve into whether there was
a governmental plan to commit crimes against Armenians living in the
late Ottoman Empire, including the looting of property. The plaintiffs
have made clear that they wish their allegations to span the demise
of the Ottoman Empire and carry over into modern Turkey. For example,
the plaintiffs allege that the Armenian tragedy extended from 1915 to
1923, insinuating that any wrongful acts that contributed to it are not
only the responsibility of the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor state,
but also its successor, Republic of Turkey, which was founded in 1923."
The Turkish ambassador then unabashedly offered the Judge his
embassy's services as an unimpeachable source for documentation on
the Armenian Genocide! "My embassy places itself at your disposal to
provide references to scholarly works that disagree with the current
orthodoxy that the Armenian tragedy ought to be termed genocide,"
the letter said.
Amb. Sensoy then chastised Judge Morrow by instructing her that her
"use of the term 'Armenian Genocide,' is inappropriate." He said he
was unhappy that in her September 11 opinion, the Judge had made a
reference to the "Historical Background of the Armenian Genocide." He
also accused the Judge of "being an advocate of one side in a genuine
historic controversy...."
In response to this unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the
court, the attorneys for the Armenian side -- the plaintiffs --
filed an affidavit with the court on March 7, 2007, that stated:
"The letter from the Turkish Ambassador is replete with inaccuracies
and erroneous suppositions.... The Republic of Turkey is not a party
to this lawsuit, nor has it appeared in any capacity in such a way to
allow it any voice in this process.... There is no legal justification
for this Court to consider any position presented by the Republic
of Turkey in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs recommend that the
Court disregard the Turkish Ambassador's letter."
On the other hand, the attorneys for the German banks -- the defendants
- claimed in their affidavit that the Turkish ambassador's letter
was "relevant evidence." Not surprisingly, the defendants used that
letter to buttress their allegation that the lawsuit could have to
"negative implications" on U.S.
relations with Turkey. They claimed that the Turkish ambassador's
letter demonstrates that the court's consideration of "the degree of
Turkey's culpability for its treatment of Armenians during the WWI
period implicate[s] sensitive foreign policy concerns between the
United States and Turkey even to this date."
While the Turkish government's intent in sending such a letter to the
Judge may have been to defend its interests, it may actually result
in the following unintended and detrimental consequences for Turkey:
1) The Ambassador's unwarranted interference in the affairs of a
U.S. Federal Court could result in the Judge not only rejecting his
unsolicited intervention but also negatively disposing her towards
the German banks for their possible role in orchestrating that letter;
2) Should the judge reject the letter, her ruling would imply that a
straightforward case of seeking the return of Armenian assets held by
German banks, would become, as the Turkish ambassador himself stated,
a legal case with far reaching consequences for the Turkish side,
including the reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide by a U.S. Federal
Court and holding today's Republic of Turkey responsible for the
losses suffered by genocide victims.
Once again, by its emotional over-reaction to all issues dealing with
the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish government may have shot itself
in the foot!
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
By Harut Sassounian, Publisher, The California Courier
AZG Armenian Daily
05/04/2007
Defying all acceptable legal norms, Turkey's ambassador to the
U.S., Nabi Sensoy, recently sent a highly inappropriate letter to
U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Morrow (Federal Court), asking her to
dismiss a lawsuit by Armenian plaintiffs against the German Deutsche
Bank and Dresdner Bank. A copy of this previously undisclosed letter
was obtained by this writer.
In a class action lawsuit, filed by Yeghiayan & Associates; Kabateck,
Brown, Kellner, and Geragos & Geragos, Armenian plaintiffs had accused
the two German banks of concealing and preventing the recovery of
assets, which were deposited by Armenians in these banks "prior to
World War I and the Armenian Genocide." The plaintiffs had further
alleged that the banks "accepted looted assets, forcibly taken by
the government of the Ottoman Turkey during World War I and the
Armenian Genocide."
Ever since the filing of this lawsuit in 2004 (amended in 2006), these
German banks have done everything possible to have it dismissed. They
have challenged the constitutionality of the law passed by the
California Legislature, which extended the Statute of Limitations,
and created standing for plaintiffs to sue the German banks and other
institutions until 2016. In their attempt to counter the charge that
they are the beneficiaries of ill-gotten gains, the German banks,
through their legal counsel, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy, have
claimed that the California law "is an unconstitutional encroachment
on the federal government's exclusive power over foreign affairs."
It now appears that in order to back up their claim, the German
banks have succeeded in getting Turkey to instruct its ambassador to
the U.S. to send a letter to the Judge Morrow telling her that the
District Court is interfering in a matter involving U.S.-Turkish
relations. This modern-day German-Turkish collaboration reminds
one of the alliance forged some 90 years ago between the German and
Turkish governments during the Armenian Genocide. By reviving this
unholy union, the German banks hope to keep their "loot," while the
Turkish government can continue to cover up the genocide and attempt
to preempt any future claims against Turkey itself.
However, the German banks and the Turkish government apparently were
oblivious to the fact that by writing a letter directly to the Federal
Judge, the Turkish ambassador was interfering in a judicial process
to which the Turkish side is not a legal party.
It is noteworthy that the Turkish Ambassador's letter, dated February
23, 2007, came on the heels of Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul's latest
visit to Washington, leading one to speculate that the Ambassador may
have been pressured into this improper act by his political superiors,
possibly against the advice of his American attorneys. It is noteworthy
that, during the court hearing on February 27, 2007, the German banks'
attorney disclosed that David Saltzman, the attorney for the Turkish
Embassy, had been in close communication with him for several years
since the lawsuit was first filed.
In his letter to Judge Morrow, Amb. Sensoy wrote: "I am deeply
concerned that the plaintiffs have asked you to sit in judgment on
Turkey's sovereign acts carried out within its territory, from which I
would request that you refrain. Specifically, the plaintiffs have made
allegations that require this court to delve into whether there was
a governmental plan to commit crimes against Armenians living in the
late Ottoman Empire, including the looting of property. The plaintiffs
have made clear that they wish their allegations to span the demise
of the Ottoman Empire and carry over into modern Turkey. For example,
the plaintiffs allege that the Armenian tragedy extended from 1915 to
1923, insinuating that any wrongful acts that contributed to it are not
only the responsibility of the Ottoman Empire, the predecessor state,
but also its successor, Republic of Turkey, which was founded in 1923."
The Turkish ambassador then unabashedly offered the Judge his
embassy's services as an unimpeachable source for documentation on
the Armenian Genocide! "My embassy places itself at your disposal to
provide references to scholarly works that disagree with the current
orthodoxy that the Armenian tragedy ought to be termed genocide,"
the letter said.
Amb. Sensoy then chastised Judge Morrow by instructing her that her
"use of the term 'Armenian Genocide,' is inappropriate." He said he
was unhappy that in her September 11 opinion, the Judge had made a
reference to the "Historical Background of the Armenian Genocide." He
also accused the Judge of "being an advocate of one side in a genuine
historic controversy...."
In response to this unwarranted intrusion into the affairs of the
court, the attorneys for the Armenian side -- the plaintiffs --
filed an affidavit with the court on March 7, 2007, that stated:
"The letter from the Turkish Ambassador is replete with inaccuracies
and erroneous suppositions.... The Republic of Turkey is not a party
to this lawsuit, nor has it appeared in any capacity in such a way to
allow it any voice in this process.... There is no legal justification
for this Court to consider any position presented by the Republic
of Turkey in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiffs recommend that the
Court disregard the Turkish Ambassador's letter."
On the other hand, the attorneys for the German banks -- the defendants
- claimed in their affidavit that the Turkish ambassador's letter
was "relevant evidence." Not surprisingly, the defendants used that
letter to buttress their allegation that the lawsuit could have to
"negative implications" on U.S.
relations with Turkey. They claimed that the Turkish ambassador's
letter demonstrates that the court's consideration of "the degree of
Turkey's culpability for its treatment of Armenians during the WWI
period implicate[s] sensitive foreign policy concerns between the
United States and Turkey even to this date."
While the Turkish government's intent in sending such a letter to the
Judge may have been to defend its interests, it may actually result
in the following unintended and detrimental consequences for Turkey:
1) The Ambassador's unwarranted interference in the affairs of a
U.S. Federal Court could result in the Judge not only rejecting his
unsolicited intervention but also negatively disposing her towards
the German banks for their possible role in orchestrating that letter;
2) Should the judge reject the letter, her ruling would imply that a
straightforward case of seeking the return of Armenian assets held by
German banks, would become, as the Turkish ambassador himself stated,
a legal case with far reaching consequences for the Turkish side,
including the reaffirmation of the Armenian Genocide by a U.S. Federal
Court and holding today's Republic of Turkey responsible for the
losses suffered by genocide victims.
Once again, by its emotional over-reaction to all issues dealing with
the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish government may have shot itself
in the foot!
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress