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 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. The letter of the Ombudsman dated 7 July 2011 also demonstrates how the complaint was delayed several times (08 evidence). The Ombudsman confirmed that he had to intervene in the period from March 2007 to August 2010 eleven times (08 evidence) with the authorities (prosecutor, Supreme Court) in conjunction to push the criminal proceedings against the Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., Ryffel AG and its leaders. This pattern of dealing with the complaint gives serious reasons to believe that the judges performed discrimination and retaliation against a whistleblower, his wife and his six year old daughter. These three judges of the High Court of Zurich are subsidiary to this day despite my constitutional complaint at the Federal Court of Switzerland on 12 December 2011 not been held accountable for their abusive practice. The subsidiary constitutional complaint was dismissed by the judges of the Federal Court on 10 July 2012. The accusation of discrimination is further corroborated, because various calls for help at the Police of Zurich and the Police of Pfäffikoner and prosecutors (evidence 11) was not paying attention in the timeframe of 2003 to 2007. Consequently, my confidence in the judiciary of Zurich is limited or even shaken, if not destroyed.

It also has to be noted that all of my witnesses requests without exception (Total: 15 Witnesses) (Evidence 14 and 15) were rejected by the District Court and the High Court of Zurich consistently without any chance for appeal. Possibility that the truth was thus judicially restricted and exculpatory facts or witnesses (Art. 6 paragraph 2 of the Criminal Code - examine the incriminating and exonerating circumstances with the same care) and true facts were precluded by law from the court trial.

Such measures against whistleblowers and their dependents (wife and six year old child) are since 2010 according to the decision of the EU Parliament, at least no longer tolerated as well as the G20 ruling of 2010 and then OECD guidelines of 2010 in Europe. Switzerland is a member of these organizations and has thereby keep and obey those guidelines and rulings.

For your information "coercion and assault" (Gazette Rudolf Elmer and daughter) was then due to a declaration to the private prosecutor (Rudolf Elmer and daughter) on 24. October 2011 (evidence 16) closed for several reasons. The public interest would probably have been high on the continuation of the criminal proceedings, given that a high social relevance of the accused celebrities being responsible for a crime on a six year old child and her parents.

More importantly, however, is that the question must be answered, who was instrumental and made decisions related to that complaint which had been ignored for such a long time (Evidence 06) by the Police of Zurich. I was no notified without and even not my wife that the complaint would be ignored or turned down. It is a legal requirement that every complaint must be answered and dealt with.

I note that the Police of the City of Zurich, Police Officer Fw Assienda Heinzmann (09 evidence) according to police report of 29 October 2009 ruled that the six-year old victim, my wife and I, the victims, were not to be questioned in this case (evidence 09). Only the accused people were interrogated. The victims were only questioned after the Federal Court issued a complaint of 7 March 2011 (10 evidence) to the judges of the High Court of Zurich for their arbitrarily ruling in the case. This means almost seven years after the initial complaint was filed the victims were questioned first time in the entire investigation. The questioning of the victims was performed first time on 24 August 2011. This happened time wise shortly before the expiry of the limitation period of the crimes.

Again, there is the question to be investigated who authorized such action in the Police of the City of Zurich. According to the police report of 29 October 2009 (09 evidence) of Fw Assienda Heinzmann is held (Quote)

"Because the Federal Prosecution Office of Switzerland had issued a informal statement in early 2009 that all complaints which were filed by Rudolf Elmer should be ignored".

Thus, not only violates the basic constitutional and human rights of my person as a whistleblower, but also those of my wife and my six year old daughter in incredible and contradictory legal manner were curtailed by the Federal Prosecution Office. This is a severe discrimination and retaliation against a whistleblower and his family members. As of today no-one has been made accountable for this discrimination and retaliation.

The police report of the city police of Zurich police officer Fw Assienda Heinzmann (09 evidence) contain the statement (quote)

"All the incriminated persons listed, which were surveyed do not confessed to have threatened or coerced R. Elmer."

Considering the methodology how the complaint was closed as against Julius Baeer ‘s Management and the private detectives on 24 October 2011 and the minutes of the confrontation interrogation (27 evidence) of the accused people on 25 August 2011 was executed (Dr. Raymond Baer, Michael Baer, Rudolf Baer, Walter boy Hans Georg Schmid, Christoph Hiestand, Daniel Stockar, Peter Stelzer) it is very obvious that the accused people never told the truth to the interrogating officer of the city police and the prosecutor as well for at least 5 years (eg, the claim that "it was a hidden observation" and the result of the interrogation by the Zurich prosecutor clearly demonstrate that they were lying). It would only be logical that now because of the new situation, the credibility of these gentlemen in the current court proceedings is highly questionable (Geschäfts-Nr. SB110200-0/K11). This is especially related to the main witnesses and allegedly injured person of Christoph Hiestand. It is obvious when his interrogation protocol of 2 October 2009 (evidence 9, 17) and his statements in the confrontation interrogation analyze, it is clear that he was the first lawyer of the bank and the client's contact person for the jobs. Some examples from the interrogation Protocol of 2 October 2009 (evidence 17), Christoph Hiestand testified that: (Quotes)

Hiestand’s statement (p. 11): "All allegations, which R. Elmer makes and claims are fictitious and do not represent reality. He looks to present him as a victim. "

Question of the police (p. 8): "Can you understand that a trauma for Rudolf Elmer and his family members due to the observation has occurred?"

Reply Hiestand (p. 8): "No, especially since the observation was hidden and it was purely defensive to gather information."

Hiestand’s statement (p. 2): "After the threats, which I received from him (Elmer) not very good."

These statements contradict the facts and stand in a strong contradiction to the result of the Prosecutor that the observation was not a hidden one as Christoph Hiestand repeatedly claimed and tried to convince the investigating authorities of Zurich. As a matter of fact it was an agressively harassing Rudolf Elmer and his family. The witness statements from the representative of the private plaintiff Rudolf Elmer’s wife (evidence 25) and Rudolf Elmer (evidence 26), the medical reports of Prof. Dr. Schnyder (evidence 01.2) and Dr. Bucher (evidence 01.1) and the confrontation interrogation (evidence 27) confirm the determination result of the prosecution that it was by no means an hidden observation it was coercion, harassment and assault causing for instance a severe PTSD to the victims.

Also self-interests of the Bank must be considered, because since 2006, a non- cooperation from the bank loomed to support the judiciary in determining the truth. Prosecutor Alexander Bergmann held in its consultation on the appeal of 13 April 2006 (18 evidence) and the Swiss Federal Tax Administration called on the file and the Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., Zurich’s appeal however, that: (Quote)

"In this context it should be noted, moreover, that there is a suspicion that the Bank also has a non-acceptable self-interest in ensuring that access to the file is denied because of the abusive practice of offshore constructs, in space, in which the subsidiary of Julius Baer Bank & Trust, Cayman could have assisted or even been involved in schemes of tax evasion." The Tax Appeals Commission II of the Canton of Zurich has denied Federal Tax Authorities access to the data on 28 September 2006 in order to investigate about Swiss tax evaders etc.. Against this denial neither the prosecutor nor the Federal Tax Authorities appealed the decisions which was not in there interest to find out about the truth and it was not in the interests of the Swiss people. The authorities kept Julius Baer ‘s offshore vehicles hidden and protected them. Considering that up to 50% of net profits from the was coming from Julius Baer Cayman’s entities. That profit was repatriated into the tax exempt entity of Julius Baer Holding, Zurich. A serious tax investigation would have been in the interests of any Swiss taxpayers in order to reduce their tax burden.

In addition the entire costs of the legal trail and investigation which lasts now for more than eight years must be covered by Zurich taxpayers. Due to lack of fund my family has to be defended by a lawyer paid by the Government. The Bank has to cover no costs as of today in the three ongoing trials (eg, the criminal proceedings against the responsible Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd., Zurich and Ryffel AG, Zurich). The costs have been covered by Zurich’s tax payers.

3 Confidence in the judiciary Zurich

My confidence in the administration of justice in Zurich is lost for instance due to the fact that judge Dr. E. Zweifel stated in his decision of 11 October 2005, 12.15 pm married me to Ranitha Kumarsamy (wife of the accused Rudolf Elmer)(evidence 21), President Chief Justice K. Balmer turned down my complaint (evidence 22) against the bank in respect of money laundering, etc. on 27 April 2009 because I "do not have occurred any damaged" and therefore to complaint must be turned down (quote), even though as a compliance officer, etc. I lost my job with Julius Baer, Cayman through unfair dismissal based on a lie detector test. The situation was that Dr. Pietro Supino acting as an attorney of the law firm Bär & Karrer, Zurich, founded the Moonstone Trust as a settler respectively as a straw man (English name: convenient settler) for Dr. Robert Schuler. In he Trust about USD 1.7 million was paid in and within a year the entire amount was paid to Dr. Robert Schuler contribute. The suspicion of the hiding of the beneficial owner and abetting criminal activity appears to be obvious and definitely would have justified an detailed investigation. A second example was also related to the very same judges as the presiding judge rejected my complaint about Swiss Social Security fraud on 23 May 2008 (evidence 23), although Julius Baer did not pay social security on fringe benefits etc. for expatriates. Another case was known but it was also ignored. Eventually, the bank paid (evidence 24) CHF 28.205,45 due immediately after I had filed the complaint. Further investigations such as whether it could be a systematic way of the Bank to cheat social security payments was not performed. In conclusion, Switzerland respectively its social security system might have lost considerable sums due to not investigating the case.

I am of the opinion that the actions of the people involved would have to be pursued in the orbit of abuse, perversion of justice, evidence of false testimony, false witness and favoring ex officio. The public interest in a comprehensive investigation of the facts and circumstances is given, because the fight against maladministration in the Zurich ‘s Authorities has a high social relevance.

4. Cantonal and federal.tax administration and tax evasion

Essential for further investigation is that the police officers Fw mbA Bertram Müller and Hans Adj Seglias of the Cantonal Police stated in their report of 31 May 2007 (quote)

"The clients relate to in Switzerland and abroad domiciled individuals and legal entities. As a result, the KSTA (cantonal tax office) performed tax investigations and requested penalties for violating tax laws."

"As a result, the FTA (Federal Tax Administration) initiated various investigations against persons and companies located in Switzerland".

Internally, I had already made the bank more than once aware of abusive practice. In 1998, I apparently acted in the public interest and subject to self-interest the common interest of society and the good of society was more important than my personal interest. In the work certificate of 20 May 1999 the local CEO and Rudolf E. Bear, CEO of Julius Baer Group describe me in the certificate as a "critical thinking person" which is clear hint that I was not liked by Management.(28 evidence) and spoke up in critical matters.

The Federal President of Switzerland in 2012, Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf, publicly condemned the abusive practice of Cayman and other offshore structures such as trusts, offshore funds, etc., calling for a shift away from abetting tax evasion, etc. in terms of her proclaiming white money strategy for Switzerland. The tax authorities of the Canton of Zurich initiated criminal proceedings and penalties and the Swiss Federal Tax Administration (03 evidence) initiated proceedings against Swiss individuals and Swiss based entities, even though the Tax Appeals Commission II of the Canton Zurich by order of 28 September 2006 (04 evidence) denied the right to investigate the data of Julius Baer Cayman to the Federal Tax Administration (13 evidence) in the seized Julius Baer Cayman data at my home. There is also evidence in the seized and secured data that Julius Baer & Trust Co. Ltd., Cayman, (not the bank: Bank Julius Baer & Trust Co. Ltd., Cayman.). Possessed knowledge of tax offenses of their clients and evidence the Bank actively assisted and encouraged certain tax avoiding etc. actions. Theses activities and criminal clients should have been discovered by the investigating Police Officer during the period of investigation which was more than five years. At the latest those should have been pick up when they were published on WikiLeaks in 2008, the name of a convicted drug lord Arturo Acosta Chapparo, link to the two companies, the bin Laden family and other convicted and prosecuted criminals. This evidence you still can find on WikiLeaks (www.wikiLeaks.org front and "mirror"). On 13 February 2009 the famous newspaper The Guardian, England published a report of two whole pages of Julius Baer, Cayman and made others findings public such as:

"According to the documents (" Julius Baer / Carlyle "), investors included the Saudi prince Talal bin Abdul-Aziz (USD 1M), two companies advised by Prince Michael of Liechtenstein (USD 7m), the late Akram Ojjeh who earned a fortune brokering arms deals in the Middle East (USD 2m), the Kuwaiti state's sovereign wealth fund (USD 10m) and London-based Saudi companies linked to the bin Laden family ("before 9/11") construction group (USD 2m) ".

A criminal investigation with a view to the corporate criminal law of Switzerland (Criminal Code Article 102 which is in force) and the data of Julius Baer ‘s Cayman should have been performed. It is a fact that for example the protocols of decision (Trust Resolutions) for deposits and withdrawals in the case of drug lord Arturo Acosta Chapparo by Rudolf E. Bear (CEO of Julius Baer Holding) and Sabine Gerber Dürr (Head Estate Planning, Zurich) were signed and authorized.

5. Privacy, Swiss banks and Julius Baer: Grand Cayman offshore structures

I want to state that I am basically for the protection of privacy.If the criminal, the beneficiaries, owners are hidden by structures and vehicles in Cayman offshore, which is often the case related to the vehicles of Julius Baer offshore, then it is not justified to use privacy protection and protection of bank clients and its business models. The public interest in combating abusive practice, and also the information interests of the financial interests of civil society outweighs the interests of Bank Julius Baer in securing its reputation and business interests, and protecting the privacy of its clients. The dissuasive measures against me and my family are for other and any bona fide bank employee a serious interference with the constitutionally protected fundamental human rights (eg freedom of expression and dissemination of information freedom, the right to liberty and security, right to a fair trial, respect for private and family life, non-discrimination, etc.) of the individual.

This unique business model "Swiss Banking Cayman linkage" is (opened an Anglo- Saxon Cayman Trust, and maintains a Swiss bank account) because of my internationally observed court proceedings will lead and must lead to further European expert discussions. These discussions could once again massively pull the Swiss financial center in the criticism and of course provide the possible extraterritorial, imperialistic approach of the Swiss bank-client confidentiality (protection of data source from the Cayman Islands) and the use of obfuscation and hiding structures of Swiss banks in question . This "Swiss banking model" contradicts the principles of Anglo-Saxon Trust practice. I have enough practical experience as a former Head of Global Shared Service Centre (2006 - 2008 in Mauritius) is responsible for the administration of over 3 ‘000 thousands of trusts and offshore companies one of the largest banks in the world. Also, I know this from institutions such as Barclays and HSBC, for example, that trust accounts are generally open to the domicile of the Trust or the Company from risk considerations, etc.. The "Swiss approach" using Anglosaxon trusts with accounts in Switzerland must be considered as unique and extraordinary and demonstrates how banks in Switzerland abused Anglo-Saxon legal structures such as trusts in order to hide settlers, beneficiaries and dubious transactions run through those secrecy accounts in Switzerland. For example, the Bank Vontobel, Zurich offered according attached letter dated 24 September 2012 still Anglo-Saxon trusts with Swiss bank accounts (evidence 12), which do not have any legal personality under Swiss and Anglo-Saxon law. In the Anglo-Saxon trust is the contractual partner of the settler as investor of the capital or assets, so the founders. For legal reasons, the capital all his property rights in the assets must be irrevocably assign to the Trust. This is introduced in order to conceal an offshore trust company of the Bank formally, the Trust Companies not subject to the Banking Act. Even Swiss trust companies are not under the Banking Act. The Section Trust Company has commitments, the fund, which knows no legal owner, in accordance with trust deed (Trust Deed) to manage.

In the case of Julius Baer Trust Co. Ltd., Cayman, which is not a bank, the bank accounts were incorporated into the Anglo-Saxon Trust. This trust is neither a natural nor a legal entity and has no legal personality. Thus, there is no formal trust as client and in certain situations even not the beneficiaries and thus is in the abuse of offshore trust company of the perpetrator (Executive Committee of Julius Baer, Cayman). Just the Trust Company decides in principle on the assets and not the clients and not the bank. The Trust Deed (Trust Deed) between the settler (founder) and offshore trust company is a contract with the bank and cash depositors (settler) may formally have no effect otherwise it would be an unlawful form design (Shame Trust). A professionally managed bank would never risk to sign a trust deed (Trust Deed), because trust lawsuits amount to at least tens of millions and regularly and have fatal consequences for the bank. But the Swiss law does not have a trust law.

6. Applications

1) I request access to all documents and information with the name of the author, which documents (files, etc.) have not yet been found in the investigation input handwritten notes, entries in POLIS and journals to the When, Where and How of evidence To check etc. concerning

- The alleged statement of my mother, "my grandfather's suicide," according to the opinion of 22 February 2010 based on the disposal of the cantonal police of 31 May 2007,

- Registration of complaint by the police command according Zurich prosecutor 17th letter of Schwyz January 2007 (06 evidence).

2) Because of (a) 18 and 19 March 2013 at the Prosecutor Zurich viewed files and Cayman data, (b) at the District Court of Zurich and presented at the Zurich High Court justifications of my trade with enclosed and the judges passed notes, the (c) listed herein initiated criminal proceedings and penalties by the Cantonal Tax Administration Zurich and the Swiss Federal Tax Administration, the (d) Information on WikiLeaks (Mirror), the (e) international reporting (The Guardian UK, February 9, 2009), (f) imminent indictment of Bank Julius Baer & Co. AG and the United States, (g) payment of EUR 50 million compared with Germany concerning terminating the investigation actions against the Bank in 2011 and (h) massively tarnished credibility of management (eg key witness Christoph Hiestand, however, Dr. Raymond Baer Rudolf E. Baer, Michael Baer, etc.) in the process of "coercion and assault" (eg the determination result of the prosecution of the alleged hidden observation) are sufficient evidence from which justifies an immediate house search at Bank Julius Baer & Co. Ltd. , Zurich. The suspicion of using tax fraud and money laundering is clearly to be taken into consideration.I apply in addition to the criminal case also with a view to finding evidence in this method a search of the bank, as the credibility of the Bank and its representatives which lost credibility (eg determination result of the prosecution of the alleged hidden observation).

It also needs to be considered that in view of the previous statements and behavior of bank employees a certain probability of another false statement made by the investigating authorities related to the truth of the Cayman data because the bank is trying to obscure from self-interest and to conceal the real economic issues of its abusive business models.

3) The review by the judges of the High Court, whether ex officio extensions of investigations are necessary in view of the situation depicted.

7. Concluding Remarks

I note that on the Code of Criminal Procedure, I have based the right of an accused to be able to see all the evidence against me, to be able to take a position, to thereby obtain a fair trial, according to Human Rights Convention Article 6, paragraph first

I hereby inform the affected areas of the possible abuses toward me and is now no other effective way to remedy the grievances available. When I then informed the bank, I was working in the testimony in this regard (28 proof) of 20 May 1999 described as "critical thinking person".

Finally, I consider that my PTSD only alleviates slowly and I still find myself in a doctor's care. The healing process is perennial with such an injury. My intellectual skills improve only slowly.

Due to the internal and external political sensitivity of this trial, and also with reference to the decisions of the Federal Prosecution Officer in this matter, I feel compelled, as usual, in a separate letter to inform the heads of the EJPD and EVS.

Best regards

Rudolf Elmer

Copy to:

- Chief Justice R. Naef and speakers and E. Leuenberger (without attachments) - Attorney lic. iur. Ganden Tethong Blattner - Dr. M. Kiesewetter (without attachments) - Swiss Federal Audit Office () as focal point of the Federal Whistleblower - EJPD (with supplements) and EVS (without attachments)

Enclosures:

- According supplement list