From: "Jaroslav J. Marik" <JJMARIK@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:09:52
Subject:
Dear Friends
My computer decided to have a breakdown for about a week and thus I
received
an e-mail just a couple of days ago. It seems that my previous
communication
describing the action of Dr. Chytil and my brother in the Federal Court
in
Los Angeles has created quite a bit of interest.
I believe that we have to look at things as they are. On one hand
is a U.S.
Constitution which says that all citizens have equal rights and does not
discriminate between citizens born in this country and those who became
naturalized. On the other hand, the State Department claims that
there are
international laws which make it impossible to espouse claims of people
not
born in this country and people who were not citizens at the time of
expropriation. I do have some problems accepting this particular
position.
It was defended by Miss Ridgeway who used to head one of the commissions
of
the State Department and the Department of the Treasury. She
claimed that
international laws say this or that. I tried to call her on a
couple of
occasions and left messages. I believe that she responded once and
only left
a message for me. The bottom line is that there are no
international laws,
at least I was not provided with a copy of them. I filed an action
to compel
Miss Ridgeway and the State Department to produce these laws under the
Freedom of Information Doctrine. Unfortunately, Miss Ridgeway left
the post
and the request went nowhere. Not being a legal scholar, my
impression is
that there are no international laws and the State Department simply does
what the State Department wants to do using the excuse of compliance with
non-existing laws.
As I mentioned in my previous communication, the federal judge here in
California essentially decided that the State Department is free to do
whatever it wants to do without respect to constitutional rights of
citizens.
That, of course, seems to be ridiculous and will be the major point of
appeal of Dr. Chytil and my brother. I cannot see that the
Appellate Court
will not agree with us.
Again, I think that if we will be able to file similar action in
many
federal courts in different parts of the U.S., we hopefully will find a
judge
who will be sympathetic to our cause and issue an order to the State
Department to obey the U.S. Constitution and espouse our claims.
But let's be realistic. Even if the State Department espouses our
claims, I
can see that various post-Communist countries will try to find a way to
avoid
restitution of the property and try to silence us by a payment of
pittance
for our property. For that reason, I believe, we should further
investigate
a possibility of filing lawsuits at the Federal Court asking for
restitution
of property or just and proper compensation. The advantage of
course would
be that the level of compensation could be determined by us based on
independent evaluation of confiscated property. The problem with
this
particular plan is that if the lawsuit is filed against private parties,
there will be problems with collecting a judgment. If the
action is filed
against the State, the State would claim a privilege exempting it from
lawsuits. The Russians in Federal Court in Texas did not do it and
the
plaintiff ended up with significant judgment. Poland seems to have
learned
a lesson and filed an opposition at the Brooklyn Federal Court. The
ruling
of the Federal Court is not available at this time, to my
knowledge.
A remaining question is if filing against an institution like a ministry
or
restitution fund or a fund of national property, etc. will invoke similar
protection afforded to a sovereign country. To my knowledge, it was
not
tried yet, and my discussions with various lawyers indicate that there is
no
clear-cut answer. Thus, again, if we file enough of these lawsuits
in
various federal courts, hopefully one of the judges will accept our
position
that these various institutions should not be afforded a protection of
sovereign country.
If any one of you has additional information or suggestions, please let
us
all know. Filing a lawsuit at the Federal Court costs approximately
$140.00
and that's all one faces if the action is unsuccessful.
As far as CSCE is concerned, they seem to be critical of the
post-Communist
governments in various countries, but have not really done everything
that is
in their power. For example, they have not instructed the State
Department
to request through the U.S. Ambassador at the United Nations to have a
discussion with the Czech Republic about the now well-known Simunek case
ruled on favorably by the Human Rights Committee of the United
Nations in
Geneva. The rules of the United Nations give the losing party 60
days to
respond. The ruling came down approximately three years ago and the
Czech
government is ignoring the decision as well as membership rules of the
organization of the United Nations. Obviously, Miss Albright is not
willing
to do it. After all, to my knowledge, she got her family property
in the
former Czechoslovakia restituted and supposedly, the same happened in the
former Yugoslavia.
Lastly, as far as Ms. Walsh is concerned, for her it goes the same as the
CSCE. She has admitted on a number of occasions that discrimination
has
occurred primarily against U.S. citizens, but these were words and no
deeds.
Being a lawyer, I am sure that she can, at various meetings, respond in a
way
she knows her listeners will appreciate and possibly even promise
activities
she never undertakes. It seems that all, or at least most, politicians
behave
that way. Again, if enough pressure is directed on her, the U.S.
Department
of State and the CSCE, I believe that we can get some response. So
-- let's
push.
Please do not be disappointed by the lack of major successes as of
now.
Obviously, a relationship with a sovereign country in the middle of
Europe is
more valuable than a few angered naturalized citizens. Does somebody know
a
politician seeking reelection who might take our problem and make
it an
issue? That would definitely help. Does someone have a good
connection to
public media to attract attention to our cause? That would help as
well.
We may be looking at various organizations in this country or various
politicians in different ways based on our personal experience with
them.
But our goal is the same and the only way to achieve it is by
pushing.
Remember Senator Torrecelli of New Jersey changing his originally
negative
position on acceptance of some countries to NATO after being a target of
Polish immigration groups? One hundred eighty degree reversal of
position.
Can we do the same? Let's at least try.
Sincerely,
P.S. At the beginning of next year, we will have a different
administration
in Washington, hopefully, one more favorably inclined to our cause.
Even if
another Democrat is elected, it is quite certain that a number of members
of
the government will retire and new people will come in.
From:
"Peter & Eva <pgratz@sonic.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000 15:26:16
Subject:
I find the argument regarding "the impossibility of espousing claims of
people not
born in this country and people who were not citizens at the time of
expropriation" untenable on another ground
Even if the first expropriation occurred while we were still the citizens of
another country, it is NOT really THAT original expropriation we are
protesting. That expropriation NO LONGER LEGALLY EXISTS, having been
annulled by the Czech Government in 1990.
What we are protesting is CURRENT discrimination against us by the Czech
government, based SOLELY on our American citizenship. According to both
Czech and international law, the confiscation of our property was legally
annulled. Never happened. Ex tunc. (Sorry, not a lawyer but raised by two
lawyers).
Ergo, the legal right to claim the property we NEVER LOST OWNERSHIP OF has
come into existence the day the Czech government annulled the verdicts
against us declaring them null and void. As of THAT DATE, the current Czech
government has been denying us access to our own property that has, by their
own laws, never ceased to be ours. Therefore, the American government has no
grounds to deny responsibility for protecting our property right based on
the date of our citizenship. We were American citizens in 1990.
Any thoughts, anybody?
Eva
From: "Geoffrey
Vasil <Geoffrey.Vasil@flf.vu.lt>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:01:10
Subject:
I hesitate to offer my humble thoughts to so many people at once, but I
feel there is a continuity of practice here across the former communist
states, or at least some similarity between Czech Republic and Lithuania.
The Soviet order of things was not completely annulled, not legally, but
even so various versions of and separate laws on the return of property
have come and gone in the last ten years. The current situation is perhaps
the worst of all worlds, with three layers of privatization and return
clouding the landscape. The government has reserved unto itself to make
compensation for lands it believes cannot be returned, in kind or in money
or stocks and bonds. In practice, some land is not being returned because
of the interests of local bureaucrats, who have one or another interest in
the property, or of sometimes overlapping legal departments and
ministries. It is amazingly easy to create a national treasure in
Lithuania, just stick a few paintings on display and call the manor a
museum, and then after that the estate is allowed to decay even further.
The current situation in Lithuanian manors and estates, even cemeteries,
is such that the next generation will have no tangible proof of the
glorious Lithuanian past, no physical evidence, only hearsay. The
government is a poor caretaker.
Compensation in kind is usually not in kind farmland and forest, city
properties, all have their own specific nature, needs and uses.
Compensation by cash is at a price set by the government. Stocks and bonds
are often offered in worthless companies, debt-producing companies, or
companies going bankrupt. Which is where the Lithuanian government has been
investing its own monies, so it's hardly surprising. There is the issue of
citizenship still, but beyond that, the code and constitution of 1940 no
longer applies. The Lithuanian constitution was adopted in 1992 by
referendum. I question whether the still valid constitution of the
1918-1940 Lithuanian state allows that, but it is beyond my ability to
delve too far into that question. As an example, I was shown a last will
and testament from May 1, 1940, leaving a few houses and a small plot to
the family members in New York, written by the family in Lithuania, in a
small town in the north. The children in NY were Lithuanian citizens then.
No one took away that citizenship. In the event of their deaths, there was
a reasonable and logical line of succession mapped out in the family. The
will was dated, there were signatures of witnesses, and so on. The family
in USA, the grandchildren and great-grandchildren, have preserved this
will, although they didn't even know what it was. They don't have
Lithuanian citizenship, and they don't speak Lithuanian. But why is it the
USSR invasion somehow changes their right to their family's property? The
will was valid in 1940, why is it not now?
Enough from me.
Geoffrey Vasiliauskas
From:
"Hrvoje Latkovic" dynamic10@home.com
Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2000, 09:25:38
Subject:
Dear Vasil
Thank you for your mail, which is very interesting since it allows us from
different countries to compare the situation. My property is in Croatia.
This is my opinion after struggling for many years
- The problem lies HERE in the U.S., not in our respective countries of origin.
- The problem is within the U.S. State Dept. which is putting itself ABOVE
the law, above the U.S. Constitution, DENYING to us, Naturalized U.S.
citizens the same equal rights as any other American national, violating
that way the U.S> Constitution, Amendment 14, Chapter 1.
- Once we succeed to abolish this terrible discrimination, the U.S.
government WILL have to support our cause without other choice.
- Only THEN, and after THIS will happen, our respective countries of origin will have to change their policies and laws, even
retroactively, since under
the U.S. pressure, they will have to. Now, that pressure doesn't exist at
all, so all these countries are doing whatever it pleases them!!!
- I truly believe this is THE main obstacle. Once this is eliminated, the
other countries will have to bend under the U.S. Gov. pressure, which
pressure right now DOESN'T exist.
- So, I would suggest to all to leave their particular situations in their
country of origin for a moment, and concentrate on the problem here with the
U.S. State Dept. etc.
- Dr. Chytil and Dr. Marik already started this process by suing the State
Dept.. in Calif. , obviously understanding this problem long before myself
did.
Best regards,
Hrvoje
From:
"Jaroslav J. Marik" <JJMARIK@aol.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2000 13:48:32
Subject:
A number of correspondents have contacted me inquiring about the lawsuit
filed by Dr. Chytil and my brother here in Southern California. Here is the
information.
The case of my brother was filed against the State Department and Madeleine Albright at District Court in Santa Ana, Case #SACV 99-657 DOC EEX for
Petition for Writ of Mandate. The case was filed on May 7,
1999.
On September 1, 1999 a "Notice of Interested Parties" (local rule) was
filed.
It was followed on September 5, 1999 by "(Amended) Complaint for Declaratory
Relief."
On November 15, 1999 the State Department filed a "Request for Consolidated
Hearing on Motion to Dismiss" Case #SACU99-1092DOC (VAP).
On December 6, 1999 there was a court hearing in front of Judge David O.
Carter (appointee of Clinton's). The judge issued "Order Granting
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss."
On January 20, 2000, the lawyer filed a "Notice to Appeal."
On January 20, 2000 a request for copy of transcript was filed, the number of
the appeal case.
My brother's telephone number is (949) 489-1037
His fax number is (949) 489-1044
Email is ABMARIK@aol.com
I would suggest that his e-mail address be included on all of our
communications so that he can respond to some of the inquiries directly.
Dr. Chytil's Tel. # is (417) 961-1553. His address is 3112 Garnet Lane,
Fullerton, CA 92631. Dr. Chytil has no internet connection.
Thank you
JJMarik
