TURKEY INTERFERES IN LAWSUIT AGAINST GERMAN BANKS ON
GENOCIDE ASSETS
30-03-2007 14:05:00 | USA | Articles and Analyses
By Harut Sassounian
Publisher, The California Courier
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!