Rudolf Elmer [Address] RECIPIENT High Court of Zurich Hirschgraben

Rudolf Elmer [address] RECIPIENT High Court of Zurich Hirschgraben 13/15 8021 Zurich 26th March 2013 Business-No. SB110200-0/K11 As a defendant I have the legal right to a fair trial and to review all documentary evidence of my case. Reviewing the psychiatric report of the psychologist Dr. Kiesewetter (Forensic Psychiatrist of the Court of Zurich), various clarifications from my part are required and particularly related to what the prosecutor accuses me in her indictment titled "Threats etc" of 19 January 2011. Rudolf Elmer, 1 November 1955, Certified Public Accountant, [address] Dear Mr. President of the High Court P. Marti, Dear speakers and judges R. Naef and E. Leuenberger, I refer to the conclusion of Chief Justice P. Marti, dating 20 February 2013 that there is currently no reason to perform additional investigations related to the response of Dr. Kiesewetter. Due to the response from Dr. Kiesewetter I have noticed more inconsistencies and facts regarding the untrue statement that "[My] mother should have stated that my grandfather committed suicide" in Dr. Kiesewetter’s lengthy report. Dr. Kiesewetter’s response of 18 February 2013 reiterated my claim "to have access to all original documents of the police in order to identify their author." It is to be clarified and made known who is the author and the source of the defamatory statement that "[my] grandfather committed suicide" and by whom and on what occasion my mother was questioned when she presumably should have made that statement. 1. Dr. Kiesewetter’s (forensic psychiatrist) report With apology from Dr. Kiesewetter I would like to say that it irritates one already if an expert's mistake (for example by giving me the name of Robert instead Rudolf Elmer) in his evaluation is rejected on the secretary who performed the final editing of the 117 pages analysis and conclusion. Dr. Kiesewetter also states that, on 22 July 2008, I had my doctors released in writing from their medical confidentiality. At the same time he wants despite my alleged confirmation another release of the medical confidentiality of the psychological experts Prof. Dr. Ulrich Schnyder, Dr. phil. L. Wittmann and Dr. Hans Peter Bucher. These statement are contradictory. Moreover, Dr. Kieseweter had plenty of documents and information available of Dr. Carole Kherfouche (Psychiatric- Psychological Service of the Canton of Zurich). She was responsible for me during my time in prison in October 2005. These documents appear to have been arbitrarily excluded by Dr. Kiesewetter even though they are part of the prosecutor’s file. It is very strange and possibly unlawful that all my medical records were seized on 27 September 2005 by Police Officer Fw mbA Adj Bertram Müller at my home at Rietstrasset 8, Freienbach. The purpose of the house search based on the justification "threats, etc." to confiscate all my medical and personal records have nothing to do with the argument of "threats etc." or the later alleged violation Swiss Bank Secrecy. Therefore, the confiscation of the medical records violates my medical confidentiality. I have not provided prosecution with any authorization to use those confiscated medical files. Now these medical files were unlawfully seized and used by Dr. Kiesewetter for his report. In addition, every information that his report contains was used in a selective way, and what contradicts it was simply ignored. Such a procedure is equated with methodical thesis journalism. • In the seized records there was also evidence that confirmed that I was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In 2004 I saw Dr. M. Seidle for treatment about the PTSD and in 2005 I contacted Dr. phil. Witmann and Prof. Dr. Ulrich Schnyder, the expert about PTSD at the University of Zurich. Dr. Wittmann and Prof. Schnyder (evidence 01) made me demonstrate at the University of Zurich in front of future physicians to explain with my case "the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)" and its effects (evidence 01). Prof. Schnyder and Dr. Wittman provided a diagnosis and answered the questionnaire of the prosecutor on 17 October 2008, the Prosecutor (evidence 01.2) was in possession of it 13 months before the expert opinion of Dr. Kiesewetter, dated with 22 February 2010. As a psychological expert Dr. Kiesewetter did not use this information and did not mention the PTSD in his report. This is an example of the selective usage of information and perception of his reality. There is a possibility that the prosecutor had withheld the information but on the other hand Dr. Kiesewetter also interviewed me for 90 minutes. There is probably no question that PTSD is also to be regarded among others as an essential element in particular in such a psychiatric report issued by the Forensic Psychologist Dr. Kiesewetter. • Further key information could have been found in the confiscated personal files (evidence 02, such as "CV Folder, AHV / IV / EO, salaries, taxes," etc.) If Dr. Kiesewetter had only perceived and noticed that I, as Chief Operating Officer and Deputy Managing of the organization, lived in Cayman with my family in a 3 ½-bedroom apartment costing USD 4.000 (monthly rent, which was cheap there) and drove a 15- year-old Toyota and only had a gross income including bonus of $ 180.000 (2001). I could not afford a house or even private plane or yacht, like other bankers. In my opinion, Dr. Kiesewetter accused me of the Banker’s typical narcissism of "narcissistic gratification, narcissistic rage" (Opinion: S.96/97). His diagnosis represents a malicious misinterpretation of facts by a so-called expert. My income and my assets, my training at Columbia University / New York were ignored although evidence and documents are part of the investigation files due to the fact those were confiscated in 2005. Dr. Kiesewetter does not know the business environment and practices in a corrupt country like the Cayman Islands even though I tried to explain this. • Finally, I want to mention that I made Dr. Kiesewetter aware at the 90-minute psychiatric interview on 6 January 2010 I would be willing and able, after the urgently needed hip replacement surgery scheduled for 5 February 2010 (30 days later, 19 evidence), I will be willing to cooperate as soon as I have no pain anymore and I am drug-free. For obvious reasons, I turned down Dr. Kiesewetter’s proposal on 6 January 2010 while lying in front of him on the floor in order to reduce pain caused by my hip problem to answer his questions. In addition, the psychological evaluation was completed without prior notice due by the prosecutors A. Bergmann and Dr. Kiesewetter. It was an evaluation based on documents. Although I was always willing to participate in this evaluation in further meetings after my hip surgery under the condition that I was pain-free and drug-free, to my surprise I was not summoned and subsequently the psychological evaluation was prepared without me having the opportunity to attend further meetings and being able to state my position. So I was illegally deceived by the Prosecution Office which also ignored my willingness to cooperate and this explains the poor quality of the evaluation and the errors contained therein. This fact has to be taken into account at the latest when the cost recovery for the 113- page psychological evaluation will be discussed and possibly in the continuation of the process at the Federal Court or even the European Court of Human Rights. 2. Investigative actions and results of the investigation Statement according to my mother's psychiatric evaluation (p. 11) and with respect to an alleged police report (Quote) "It is simply been better that her son had no weapon in his home. The grandfather of Rudolf Elmer had committed suicide by shooting. But Mrs. Elmer is convinced that Rudolf would never commit such an act." I request a formal hearing of witnesses who made this false statement in order to identify the source, respectively the author. For your preliminary information I give you in the attachment a statement of my mother (evidence 05). This was signed by her in the presence of her nurse JP Hofer and also signed by me on 20 February 2013. I also request to view the evidence (journal entry, police data "POLIS, internal manual notes and memos, etc.) indicating the basis for such a statement (Dr. Kiesewetter the injunction in its opinion of February 18, 2013 as a police report, evidence 03) of 31 May 2007. I am aware that my mother's declaration for not having made the above statement, might not be accepted as evidence. However, this is provided to the next higher authorities to the European Court of Human Rights. This makes it possible to show that with a high probability a false statement in a psychiatric diagnoses and report to the courts was made and interpreted as evidence against me by Dr. Kiesewetter. Furthermore I request to examine under what basis the Commando of Zurich’s Police did not investigate my complaint in 2005.The prosecutor of Schwyz forwarded the complaint of coercion by Bank Julius Baer and Ryffel AG (Detective Bureau) according to the enclosed of the prosecutor of Schwyz (Evidence 06) to the Commando of Zurich’s Police. Without any notice to me the Police of Zurich filed to complaint. The newly filed complaint in 2007 was systematically ignored and repeatedly rejected by Zurich’s authorities. Finally, the Federal Court of Switzerland confirmed serious procedural deficiencies (eg, the letter from my daughter to the judges was read (evidence 07) in its decision of 7 March 2011 (Evidence 10). The judges of the High Court Kurt Balmer, Willy Meyer and Anton Schärer and the Prosecutor's Office Zurich, among others with their decision psychological violence in the sense of psychological terror of a six year old child protected, were told off by the Federal Courts acting arbitrarily and in bad faith.

Load more