/
1
2

3
4

Robert L. Shapiro, State Bar No. 043693
Sara Caplan, State Bar No. 147271
CHRISTENSEN, MILLER, FINK, JACOBS,
GLASER, WElL & SHAPIRO, LLP
2121 Avenue of the Stars, 18th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067
Telephone: (310) 553-3000
Facsimile: (310) 556,.2920

(')
)

,

:

<.. -'

:
~
.

,

-

5

r, )

-<

.

Attorneys for MOGENS AMDI PETERSEN

.:

-,
•

7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

-

:;i"

.....,

-q

.--n

U

,.....,

c

(

6

-

-

)

r,-,
Ul

I

o
0:

....-

9

:t

III

10

<II
.J

'"

11

~

12

13

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

IN THE MATTER OF THE
EXTRADITION OF
MOGENS AMDI PETERSEN,
A Fugitive From the Kingdom
of Denmark

14
15
0:

•

17

-

z

'"

The Honorable Victor B. Kenton
U.S. Magistrate Judge

MOGENS AMDI PETERSEN'S MEMORANDUM
OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES RE:
EXTRADITION HEARING; DECLARATION OF
ROBERT L. SHAPIRO IN SUPPORT THEREOF
Date:
August 19, 2002
Time:
10:00 a.m.
Courtroom: H

16

'"

.J
.J

::f

Case No.CV 02-02220-GHK (VBK)

MOGENS AMDI PETERSEN, by and through his counsel ROBERT L. SHAPIRO and

18

SARA L. CAPLAN hereby submits the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities Re:

19

Extradition Hearing. Mr. PETERSEN hereby sets forth the grounds supporting his position that

20

extradition is not legally viable in this matter.

V!

Z

'"

lV!

0:
:t

U

21
22

23
24

This Memorandum will explain the legal and factual issues which are central to the claims of
the United States Attorney' s Office and the Kingdom of Denmark, as set forth in all files, pleadings
and records in this matter.
Dated: May 24, 2002
, JACOBS ,
LP

25
26
27

28

277540.1

~~.{

,., 9

l

\

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

2

I.

INTRODUCTION ............................................ . ........... .. 1

3

II.

STATEMENT OF FACTS . ... . . ..... . ...... .. ......... . ... . . ... ............. 3

4

III.

ARGUMENT .............. ........... .... . . . ........ .. .... .... ........ .... 4

5

A.

The Danish laws and procedures at issue . ... ................ . .. ... ......... 4

6

1.

The status of the proceedings against Mr. Petersen in Denmark. ... ....... 4

7

2.

The need for live witness testimony at the extradition
hearing is crucial. . .. ... . ..... .. .... .. .. . ..... .. ..... ........ .... 6

3.

The Foundation is legally chartered and approved by the
Danish Government. ............ .. .............. . .... .. . . . . ..... 6

4.

The Foundation and its donors have complied with all
requirements of the relevant and applicable Danish Tax Laws. . . . .... .... 7

8
0
II:

..-

9

0(

J:
Ul

10

oil
.J

-OJ

11

:=

·

II:
OJ

. ..

'" '"
0(

.J
\!)

·

'" III'"
~

u

...
0

~
0(

.J

0

i

In

0

IIJ

0 0:: 0

to- II.
I&.

LI.,

0(

Il.
II:
OJ
.J
.J

0

z

14

(a)

The Voice of the Third World .............. .... ......... ... 15

15

(b)

Return of the Marco Polo.

16

(c)

IF. Parsons, Inc. . ........ . ... . .. . .............. ...... ... 16

0
"

:t -

0'" ..J

0(

13

IFAS (promotion of research): "The Voice of the
Third World" ....................... . ................... .. ... . 12

1.

0(

1: .J 0

THE RESEARCH PROJECTS AT ISSUE ............ .... ... . .... . ....... 12

12

0
0

0(
...

U

..,
·
"z

B.

,

.
I')

•

~ ~ ~~
z ... \1'1 0
~ J: ~ ~
0(

~

iii

_ w 0

"
"

~

z
0(

-

(i)

17

10

z
OJ

'z"

.............................. 15

The Florida condominium. . ............... ....... ... 16

18

(d)

B.B. Shipping, Ltd . ..... ... ........................... .. . 17

19

(e)

La Societe Verte and L'Energie Eternelle: Environmental
Projects in Brasil, Malaysia, Tahiti .......................... 17

OJ

...

'-"
II:

J:

20

U

(i)

The Environmental Project Floryl in Brazil .... .... ...... 18

(ii)

The Tropical Rain Forest Project in Sabah,
Borneo, Malaysia .. ... ... . .. .... ... ....... ...... ... 19

(iii)

Establishing a Biogas Plant in French Polynesia
(Tahiti) . ... . ...... . ............... ..... ........ .. 20

21
22
23
24

C.

HUMANA PEOPLE TO PEOPLE ..................................... .. 21

D.
26

LEGAL ISSUES RELEVANT TO THESE EXTRADITION
PROCEEDINGS .................................................... 25

27

1.

25

28

277540.1

The Danish Extradition Treaty does not authorize income
tax evasion as an extraditable offense .................. ... ....... ... 25

 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
2

2.

There is no duality of criminality in that a Foundation with
the same characteristics as that in Denmark does not exist in
the United States tax laws or in any other American laws. . ..... . . ... ... 28

3.

The proceedings against Mr. Petersen are politically motivated. . ........ 29

3
4

PAGE

5

IV.

CONCLUSION ........................................................... 35

6
7
8
0
0:

..-

9

'"

I
Ul

10

<il
.J

...-

11

~

·

0:

...
III

'"

.J
(!)

12

·· .
<

·

• • <
0'\

0

2:

0

~

III

II,!

0 tI: 0

~

III

:r

..I

0

I- "" 11..1'1

u

. -,'"
~

II..

u

~

<
.J

1: -

.

o ... ..I "
z < •

0

13

0 0

14

W \IJ 0 ta

·
"z
"-

::l Lr.I ,~
Z I- 0'\ 0

~ :r ~ ~
~
_ w

'"

·... ·

II.!

0

~

15

z
<

0:

.J
.J

-

16
17

l:

z·

...

18

III

z

...
IIII

19

0:
I

20

U

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

28

277540. 1

11

 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
2

3

FEDERAL STATUTES
25 U.S.C.
Section 1293 ....... ..... .. ........... ..... ... ........ ..................... ................. ... .... ....... ................. .... ..... 3

4

5
6
7
8

Taxation of Foundations Act
Section 4 ...... .......... .................... ............. ... .. .................... .... .... ..... .............. ........ .... ..... ... 3, 8
Section 12
.............................. .................. .................... ........................... ........ .... ............ 7

9

Danish Criminal Code
Section 278
... ....... ................... .... ................... ......... ........................ ..... ............ ......... ....... 4
Section 289
.... ................ ........ .... ........ .... ... ..... ....... ........... ..... ... ................................... ..... 5

10

Consolidation Act No. 755 .. ............................ .. ..................... .. ...... .. .. ..... ... .. ............................. 8

11

The Danish Foundations and Certain Associations
Consolidation Act No. 698 ... ..... ... .............. .......... ....... ................................................ ........ 6

0

.'-"

MISCELLANEOUS

~

:I

III

.cs
-'

'"

~

·
'"
'"
<II
~

-'
C)
~
~

u

.
~

0

·

..

<II

12

i

13

···...
0
0

III

0

LoI 0

a:

:r

..I

10.

1: -

0

0

0 0

~ IL. IL. 1"1

0

u

01-

.,

•

.J 1'1

z < •

~

14

~ ~ ~~

~

<
-'

.,

Z

t- III 0

~

l:

"z
...-

«

'"

·

~ ~

~ Ii.! ~
_ w •

N

'-'"
--'
z·

15

Danish Extradition Treaty
.. .... .. ... .... ............................ ..... ..... ......... ...................... ....................... ......... .... 5
Article 11
Article 12
.. ....... .. ............................ ................ ............. .. .... ..... ... ......... ........ ...... ............ ... 3
Art. III, no. 23 ..................................................... .. .. .. ........ ....... ................................................. 26
Art. III, no. 26 ............ .. ..... .... .. .. .. ........ ...................................... .. .............................................. 26

Z

<

16

~

17

'"

18

<II

z

'"

f-

19

<II

-

'"

:I

20

U

Art. 3, no. 24 ............................................................................................................................. 26
Article 3(11) and (24)(B) ........................................................................................... .... .... ....... 25
Article 3(24)(b) ........................ ......... ....... ........ ........ .................. ............................... ... ...... ..... .. 26
Article 3 (24)(B) ... ..... .... ..... ..... ......... ...................................... ... ..... ................................... ....... 25
Danish Extradition Treaty
Article 11
........................................ ........................... ..... ... ............................... .............. 5
Article 12
........................................ ... ..... ........ ......... ... ..... .... ... ...... ............................... ... 3

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

277540. 1

111

 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. INTRODUCTION

2

3

In this brief and as supported by expert witness testimony (if the court permits) or

4

(alternatively) by Declarations of expert witnesses, Mr. Petersen will explain the Danish laws and

5

procedures, as well as the facts and mis-statements underlying the accusations against him, as cited

6

by the Danish prosecutor in seeking Mr. Petersen' s extradition to Denmark. The entire Statement of

7

Facts in the United States' Briefre: Extradition is taken directly from Danish Prosecutor Poul Gade' s

8

Declaration attached thereto.

o
a:

.-

9

~

Mr. Petersen will also explain (by either expert witness testimony or Declarations) that the

l:

en
ojS

10

projects at issue, the Institute for Scientific Research and Applied Sciences ("IFAS") [- The Voice of

11

the Third World; Return of the Marco Polo] (U.S. Brief, p. 15), La Societe Verte and L'Energie

12

Eternelle- three nature protection projects in Malaysia, Tahiti and Brazil (Id., p. 16) were appropriate

13

projects, meeting the requirements of all applicable laws, and the statutory and Charter "for the

14

common good" requirement.

a:·

...
U1
~

•

.J
C)

:

~

0

~

II: .(

.. "0; 0
'"

U)

IIJ

ID

~ 0

It 0
1:..1 0 0

~ 0 :~~':
~ ~ O~~:

o ., III
3: .. ~

II.! V

1/1

III ..;

0

-<

:It:

III t- III -

.J

Z

.

:~~~

k: -;:;
•

·

a:

...

-•

15

As to each project, the application, granting, funding, reporting and accounting processes will

l)

Z

16

be explained, as will the nature and viability of each project, the function and role of the Board of

17

Directors of the Foundation for the Support of Humanitarian Purposes, for Promotion of Research

18

and for Protection of the Natural Environment ("the Foundation"), and that neither Mr. Petersen, nor

19

the entity referred to as Tvind or the Tvind-Teacher' s Group, are leader(s) or controller(s) of any

20

project, funds, funding or functions of the Foundation.

.J
.J

:IE

Z·

...
III

Z

...
t-

III

-a:

l:

U

21

Approximately 140 Declarations executed under penalty of perjury by contributors to the

22

Foundation will be submitted herewith to explain the manner in which their contributions were made

23

to the Foundation; that they were never coerced or forced by Mr. Petersen, or by anyone else, at any

24

time to donate money to the Foundation; and that all donations were freely and voluntarily made to

25

support the ultimate goals and purposes of the Foundation, which is to further and support

26

humanitarian efforts, protect the environment and promote research.

27

In this brief, and at the Extradition Hearing, we will show that:

28

1.

The Foundation is legally chartered in Denmark;

277540.1

1

 2.
2

Directors, pursuant to its Charter;
3.

3
4

All Applicants for grants must submit proper applications for consideration by the

Foundation's Board of Directors;

4.

5
6

All grants made to the Foundation are approved by the Foundation's Board of

All grants were requested for a public utility ("common good"), which is also for

humanitarian, environmental or research purposes;

7

5.

Danish laws allow the donee, the foundation and the grantee to be inter-related;

8

6.

A grant for a public utility purpose is not limited to a non-commercial purpose, and

o

.II:

9

can be for profit generating purposes, provided they realize one of the Foundation's purposes.

~

1:
III

11

·
.,'"
II:

~

.J

~

..
(/)

ILl

ID

.
:

l!)
III

7.

10

<G

II:

Grants, even for profit generating projects, which are for a public utility that includes

humanitarian, environmental and/or research purposes can be deducted by the Foundation;

12

8.

The Teacher's Group has been a target of the Danish government for 30 years;

13

9.

Political considerations have led to the passage of special laws aimed at controlling or

CJI

-<

., 0 ;

0

III 0 a:: 0
1:...j 0 0

~ 0 ~~~~
~ ~ O ~~:

o ., 1&1 ... V
3:
~ III . < ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~

14

limiting the Teacher's Group, which were ruled by the Danish Supreme Court to be unconstitutional;

I/)

.J

~~~ ~

Z
~

10.

15

Government witnesses were quoted out of context, and their interviews actually

_;;; IJ
•
Z

•

-

II:

•

<

16

'"

establish that the grants were made by the Foundation for proper purposes;

oJ
oJ

Government witnesses have expressed a desire to profit from a prosecution of the

l:

17

11.

Z·
.,'"

18

Teacher's Group;

19

12.

Z

.,'"
I-

-II:

All projects for which grants were made were for a public utility that encompassed

1:

20

U

environmental, humanitarian and/or research purposes;

21

13.

The Danish Government views the Teacher's Group as a cult to be eliminated;

22

14.

In the Case Summary propounded by the police, the Teacher's Group is stated to be a

23

political organization;
15.

24
25

Live witness testimony is essential because of translation issues and the complexity of

the case;

16.

26

27

offense;

28

III

The Danish Extradition Treaty does not authorize income tax as an extraditable

277540.1

2

 17.
2

Dual criminality has not been established as there is no similar crime in the

United States;

3

18.

The Treaty requirements of an arrest warrant and committed for trial are not met; and

4

19.

Mogens Amdi Petersen is not the de facto leader of the Foundation; he is not on any

5

Charter, Board, or account of the Foundation or any other entity associated with the Teacher's

6

Group.

II. STATEMENT OF FACTS

7
8

On or about February 19,2002, Assistant United States Attorney Matthew E. Sloan filed a

0
II:

....-

9

Complaint for Provisional Arrest Warrant with a View Towards Extradition, charging, on

l:

III

oil

10

information and belief, that defendant Mogens Amdi Petersen is a fugitive from the Kingdom of

11

Denmark. The complaint states that Denmark has requested the provisional arrest of Mr. Petersen

12

with a view towards his extradition to Denmark on "charges" of embezzlement and tax evasion.

13

Denmark's request for provisional arrest in this matter was alleged to be made pursuant to the Treaty

14

of Extradition in force between the United States and the Kingdom of Denmark, signed June 22,1972

15

and entered into force on July 21, 1974; 25 USC 1293; TIAS 7864 .

J

-

"'
·

~

·
···.. ..··.
. .,· : ~ ~ ~
II:

.,"'
..

0
0

J
C)

..
.. ..
.,
. "·
z
u

u

X

0 0
~ 10. I&. n
... 1: - •

0

U

oJ

o z~ ...
oJ "

~~~~

0

~

J

...·

Z

I-

~

1:

« ~
_ •

··"'

II:

~ 0

~ ~
III

0

~

.

z

J
J

-

~

z·
.,"'
z
.,."'
-

16

During the hearing on provisional arrest and bail before United States Magistrate Stephen

17

Hillman, on February 16, 2002, the Assistant United States Attorney submitted the formal

18

extradition request from the Republic of Denmark, the opginal of which was ultimately filed on

19

March 18,2002. Mr. Petersen has been held in federal custody, without bail, since the

20

commencement of these extradition proceedings (bail having been denied by Magistrate Hillman,

21

and again by United States District Judge Nora Manella, on review, and which now is being

22

appealed to the Ninth Circuit).

II:

l:

U

23

The Extradition Request states that certain Articles of this Treaty "cover" the provisional

24

arrest of Mr. Pedersen with a view towards submission of a formal request for extradition and

25

supporting documents (Article 12), and that the crimes of embezzlement and tax evasion are

26

"covered" by the Treaty (Articles 11 and 24(B)).

27

28

The Extradition Request references and attaches an alleged "detailed Case Summary,"
allegedly prepared by the Public Prosecutor for Serious Economic Crime" and an "Order of

277540. 1

3

 Detention," dated December 18,2001 issued by Judge Steen Lovbjerg Nielsen of the court in
2

Ringkobing, which purports to order Mr. Pedersen's detention. The Extradition Request was

3

supported by a Declaration of Danish Prosecutor, Poul Gade; yet, though other witness statements

4

and evidence were relied upon, there were no affidavits nor other competent evidence, nor

5

translations thereof attached or made part of any of the pleadings filed by the United States

6

Attorney's Office.
The Extradition Request cites the Danish court's purported findings, in part, with respect to

7

8

Denmark's "allegations" against Mr. Pedersen, as follows:

o
a:

...

:t
III

<is

9

" .. . [t]here is probable cause to suspect and to a not inconsiderable

10

extent that money [from the Foundation] has been spent on matters

11

outside the approved purposes, and that thereby there has been ~

12

violation ... of the Danish Criminal Code ... in connection with the

13

Foundation's tax returns ... and [t]here is probable cause underlying

14

to suspect that [Pedersen] has contributed decisively to the assumed

15

violation." (Emphasis added.)

..J

W

~

a:

.

.,w
VI
Ir.I

~

I&.

•

.J

:

C)

,..

~

0

~

IE

0(

~

en 0 ; 0

II)

'" 0 I[ 0
::t.J 0 0

ID

0

:~~'?

U

O ...

II.,.
-<
o ,

.J"

z «

W 101 U

In
01)

~ ~~..;~

« :.::
.J

,

..

w

101-

Z

:~~~

~

_ W~
•

Z

a:- •-

<

w

16

It is further alleged that the detention order was upheld by a Danish Appellate Court (the Western

17

High Court, 7th Division) and it describes the manner in which Mr. Pedersen was taken into custody

18

by federal agents on February 16,2002.

..J
..J

lO

-

z

.,w
z

W

.,
-a:
I-

III. ARGUMENT

19

:t
U

20

277540.1

A.

The Danish laws and procedures at issue
The status of the proceedings against Mr. Petersen in Denmark.

21

1.

22

The United States claims that, based on Danish Prosecutor Poul Gade's Declaration and the

23

Case Summary, sufficient evidence exists to "establish that Pe[t]ersen had de facto control of both

24

the Teacher Group and the Foundation, and to demonstrate probable cause that he committed the

25

offenses of embezzlement and tax evasion as charged by the Danish authorities." (U.S. Brief, p. 18)

26

Based on Danish Prosecutor Poul Gade's Declaration, it is alleged that there are three

27

criminal charges pending against Mr. Petersen: Count 1: embezzlement (in violation of Section 278

28

of the Danish Criminal Code, by allegedly misappropriating funds of the Foundation for personal,

4

 rather than "for the common good" purposes); Count 2: Tax Evasion by the Foundation (in violation
2

of Section 289 of the Danish Criminal Code, by allegedly causing the Foundation to make false

3

statements in its tax filings that the Foundation was spending its funds on legitimate for the common

4

good purposes); and Count 3: Tax Evasion through the filing of contributors' individual tax returns

5

(in violation of Section 289 of the Danish Criminal Code, by allegedly causing Teacher Group

6

members to improperly deduct donations made to the Foundation on their personal income tax

7

returns because the Foundation allegedly was not funding legitimate for the common good

8

purposes).

0
IX

..-

9

'"

First, Mr. Petersen has never been formally charged with any crime whatsoever. Mr.

l:

.,
Ul

10

Petersen will show by the testimony of Eva Smith, a Danish legal expert, as well as by testimony

11

from Danish Prosecutor, Poul Gade, that there is a significant difference between American and

12

Danish criminal legal procedure, and that Mr. Petersen has, to this day, not been formally charged

13

with any offense at this time and stage of proceedings in Denmark.

.J

-

'"
·

~

IX

'"

1/1

'"
l.?
.J

•

·
"u .,
1/1

~

...
0

~

··...

0

"

In

Q

0 ~ 0

101 0

(E

0

:r

oJ 00
... 1&.10.. t')

14

As was explained in earlier pleadings, and at earlier hearings in this matter, Mr. Petersen is

15

"sigtet" and not "tiltalt". Ms. Smith can explain that in Danish law, a preliminary charge (sigtelse)

16

covers the area from a very preliminary police opinion to a firm and substantiated suspicion of a

-

17

criminal offense. During the stage of the preliminary charge, the matter is still being investigated,

z·
'z"
'"

18

and as the investigation proceeds, the preliminary charges may be extended, brought for less serious

19

offenses, or withdrawn. When the investigation of the case has been completed, the Prosecutor must

20

make an objective assessment and decide ifthere is to be an indictment (tiltale), and to what extent a

21

modification of the preliminary charge is required. When the Prosecutor decides to indict, a bill of

22

indictment (anklageskriftet) is filed in the court and the person has been committed for trial pursuant

23

to which the accused has been charged in the bill of indictment.

u

.,'"
·

II. I: .
01- .J PI

2 • "

~ ~ ~~
Z ... '" 0

'" "z ~ ~ ~ ~
"· - '"
'"

.J

:t

"
_ •

··

IX

.J
.J

III 0

2

~

1/1

I-

1/1

-IX
l:

U

24

As indicated in earlier pleadings and hearings, being "sigtet" (preliminarily charged, or

25

placed "under suspicion") at the present time, Mr. Petersen faces an as yet undetermined period of

26

"pre-formal charge detention" until the investigation of this matter is completed. He has not been

27

"committed for trial," as required by Article 11 of the Danish Extradition Treaty, and is therefore not

28

legally subject to extradition.

277540.1

5

 Furthermore, Henrik Christrup, a Danish legal expert, who has served both in private
2

practice, as well as with the Ministry of Justice, and as a Deputy Police Chief in the city of

3

Rudkobing, can explain that, at most, the December 18, 2001 "court ruling for custody (arrest

4

warrant)" against Mr. Petersen is.based on only one count of tax evasion, i.e. , that allegedly set forth

5

in Count 2. Mr. Christrup's review of the transcript of all relevant court proceedings, as well as of

6

the December 18, 2001 Court Order, claimed to be the arrest warrant against Mr. Petersen, clearly

7

reveals that the Danish Court in Ringkobing considered all three allegations proffered by the Police

8

and Prosecutor, and found sufficient evidence to issue a warrant based only on Count 2.

o
a:

....-

2.

9

J::
1/1

Thousands of documents have been produced to Mr. Petersen' s attorney in Denmark. Some

10

<II

The need for live witness testimony at the extradition hearing is crucial.

.J

'"
a:·
'"

~

V'I

•

.J
(.!)

:
...

..
III

"0
0
W 0 It 0
:z: -l 0 0

1&1

m

II..
IL

U

~

,0

..
..

of these documents are in the process of being translated and are essential to a complete

12

understanding of all issues involved. The documents are extremely complex and comprehensive,

13

span over a long period of time, and involve persons, projects and entities all over the world. Many

14

statements from the documents and exhibits referred to in the Danish Government's case summary

15

appear to have been taken out of context and presented in a manner to further the Danish

16

Government's long-standing disparaging treatment and view of Mr. Petersen and the Teacher's

17

Group.

0

~

G:

.(

Z

0(

~~~~
oJ"
Z « •

0-,

WillY.

~

::l W

.J

z :~~~

0

11

0'"

.-

.( .; ! .. :~
&;:

-;:;"
• z
a:• ••<

'"
.J
.J

0

~

lO

z·

.'z"

18

'~"

19

witnesses have been quoted out of context, and their full interviews actually show that the

20

Foundation made grants only for proper purposes and to proper entities. It is essential to have live

21

witnesses at the extradition hearing because of the translation problems, and the need to show and

22

explain the underlying factual and legal issues, which are essential to a proper and complete

23

understanding of this matter.

In fact it appears that in the documents supporting Denmark' s request for extradition, many

a:
J::

U

277540.1

24

3.

25

Foundations in Denmark (which are non-existent in the United States) are approved,

26

registered and regulated by the Ministry of Justice. Only if a Foundation is being formed for special

27

tax treatment, must it also be approved and regulated by the Ministry of Taxation. Foundations can

28

be established for many different purposes in Denmark.

The Foundation is legally chartered and approved by the Danish Government.

6

 The Danish Foundations and Certain Associations Consolidation Act no. 698 of August 11 ,
2

1992 (Prevailing) pertains to the governmental approval and registration of a Danish Foundation.

3

The Board of Directors are obligated to apply the Foundation's annual profit to the purposes set forth

4

in its Charter (the registered articles ofincorporationibylaws), and may carry over profit to a

5

subsequent financial year, if this is important to effectuating the objectives of the foundation. Part 8,

6

Sec. 29(1). Additionally, the Board of Directors of a Foundation cannot assign benefits, other than a

7

reasonable fee, considering the nature of the office and extent of the work. They cannot grant loans

8

or provide security for loans to founders, board members, auditors, or top management personnel of

9

the Foundation, or those connected to such persons by marriage or permanent cohabitation. rd. ,

o

'..-"

'"

J:
III

10

.e

11

.'"-

,

« .,

~

III

•

..J

:

'"

... a:

...

f'I

The objectives of the Foundation at issue, as stated in its Charter, are for the support of

12

humanitarian purposes, the promotion of research and the protection of the natural environmental, as

13

its name implies. The Foundation was approved and registered by the Danish Ministry of Justice .

14

The Danish Foundation Laws have nothing to do with taxation or tax issues whatsoever.

..
0(

0 ;

0

4n

II)

W 0

Ill: 0

~

CD

x..l

0 0

~ 0 :~~'?
... u o ... .J 1'1
.. « 2 « II
o ,

...

0(

.;

~

J

Z

~~~~

~

-;:;"

~

Sec. 30 .

III IJ"

:J III
...

. -

:~

- .- .
'." .

15
16

.J
.J

17

:f

4.

The Foundation and its donors have complied with all requirements of the
relevant and applicable Danish Tax Laws.

The Foundation at issue was also approved by the Danish Ministry of Taxation for special tax

-

.
.
Z

18

III

treatment, and has fully complied with all Foundation and Tax Law requirements since its inception.

Z

IIII

19

'J:"
U

As indicated by the 140 Declarations submitted by members of the Teacher' s Group who

20

have donated portions of their income to the Foundation, they have executed Irrevocable Deed of

21

Gift letters pursuant to which they have knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily entered into an

22

eleven year obligation to donate money directly from their income to this Foundation. Section 12 of

23

the Danish Tax Assessment Act provides that, "(1) Expenses for current contributions to which the

24

taxpayer has unilaterally committed himself, are deductible" pursuant to this statute. Section 12

25

provides further:

26

"(2) Expenses for unilaterally assumed commitments as mentioned in subsection 1

27

hereof are deductible if granted to associations, societies, institutions, etc., or

28

religious communities which are approved according to the provisions of subsection 3

277540.1

7

 hereof. Deductions are only allowed for annual payments not exceeding 15% of the
2

donor's earned income with addition of positive investment income. As regards

3

companies and other institutions liable to pay tax, only annual payments not

4

exceeding 15% of the donor's taxable income are deductible. Annual payments not

5

exceeding DKK 15,000 are fully deductible, however, irrespective of the limit in the

6

2nd and 3rd sentences hereof.

7

"(3) Deductions according to subsection (2) are conditional on the Minister of

8

Taxation having approved the association, the society, institution, etc., or the religious

9

community as being entitled to receive current payments with the effect that such

o

..-'"
~

J:
III

<il

·

.'"

,

C/1

•

~

•

~

0::

0(

WI

III

II,!

0

cr 0

a:I

:r

oJ

0 0

o

-,

III., U ..
::J W • ~

~ 0 :~~?
~ ~ O~~:
0(

~..

~ ~

:

.J

Z

:~~~

~

_;;;

l)

.
N

Z

-

<

•
.'"

11

institutions, etc. can be approved if they are registered in Denmark, if they are

12

charitable or otherwise serving the common good and allocate their funds,

13

including the payments received, to humanitarian purposes, to research or to the

14

protection of the natural environment." (emphasis added)

15

Section 4 of the Taxation of Foundations Act (Consolidation Act No. 755 of October 20,

:

~

"0 ~ 0

IIJ

~

payments are deductible in the donor's income statement. .. .Associations, societies,

0

~

.J
"

10

~

16

1998) provides in subsection 1 that Foundations "may make deductions for distributions to

17

charitable purposes or purposes otherwise for the common good from the income ... "

18

Subsection 4 of this statute says that foundations "may also make deductions from the income . .. ,for

19

provisions earmarked for the fulfillment of charitable purposes or purposes otherwise for the

20

common good."

oJ
oJ

::10

·
Z

.
.....
C/1

Z

C/1
II:

J:

U

Danish Prosecutor Poul Gade makes certain erroneous statements regarding the Foundation,

21

277540.1

22

and the Danish requirements for the Foundation under Danish Tax and Foundation law. His

23

statements are very confusing and obfuscate the correct legal provisions, as articulated by the

24

wording of the very statutes on which he relies. The extent and significance of the Danish

25

Prosecutor's mis-statements can be further understood by reviewing the transcript of the proceedings

26

before the Danish Judge who issued the December 18,2001 Order at issue in these proceedings, and

27

the expert opinions set forth herein.

28

III

8

 In paragraph 22 of his April 21 , 2002 Declaration, Prosecutor Gade states that the
2

contributors' right take a deduction is conditioned on the Foundation using the amounts received for

3

public utility purposes which are also of a humanitarian nature, to promote research or protect the

4

natural environment.

5
6

received from members of the Teacher Group, but it may make deductions for monies expended on

7

the public utility purposes" mentioned. He says further in paragraph 23 that, "Based on its false

8

assertions that it was allocating its funds to legitimate charitable and research projects, the

9

Foundation has failed to pay any taxes from 1987 to the present ... "

10

·
''""

0~

I/)

•

•

..J

11

Foundation's funds is defined by the" Foundation's bylaws, section 12(3) of the Danish Assessment

12

Act and section 4 of the Foundation Act.

0

:
... tIC.(
.. 0
0

i

..
In

I/)

W 0

(I:

III

m
0

r..l

0 0

0'"

..I f'l
IA

z .(

III 1&1 U

..

13

However, in paragraph 25, Prosecutor Gade states:

14

"The tax returns submitted by the Foundation from 1987-1999 state that all funds in

15

the Foundation have been paid for lawful purposes, i.e., for purposes which are

16

(i) "public utility purposes", i.e., non-commercial purposes which "will benefit a

17

broad undefined group and which in the general opinion of society are usefuf';

18

(ii) and which are also humanitarian, promote research or protect the natural

19

environment. The Foundation' s tax returns from 1987- 1999 are signed by the co-

20

defendants Bodil Ross Sorensen or Poul Jorgensen ... " (bold emphasis added)

0

:~~~

II..
u
II..
«
o ,

~

In paragraph 24, Prosecutor Gade indicates that the "scope of lawful application of the

:

l!)

~

In paragraph 23, Prosecutor Gade states that the Foundation "must pay taxes on all donations

1tI

~..,..; ~

~ ~ ~~~~
~

. ..
"

U 11/

;. •-;;"z

'"· '"

0

-'
-'

~

~

·
Z

'"

I/)

Z

'"

lI/)

'"
:J:
U

21

By these three statements, Prosecutor Gade has co-mingled and confused the legal meanings of

22

"public utility," "charitable," and "commercial" vs. "non-commercial"

23

277540.1

First, Poul Jorgensen and Bodil Ross Sorensen, both former Chair Persons of the Board of

24

Directors ofthe Foundation will testify to all information contained in every tax return prepared,

25

audited, submitted and approved by the Ministry of Taxation, on behalf of the Foundation. Through

26

their testimony, they will show that on each translation of each return the Foundation never claimed

27

that any funds were allocated to charitable or non-commercial purposes. There is absolutely no

28

requirement under Danish Foundation or Tax law that either a foundation or a grantee of a

9

 foundation be either charitable or non-commercial.
2

Based on all materials attached to the request for extradition, including the statutes, and

3

transcript of the Danish court proceedings, it is clear that a Foundation was legally formed and

4

approved, and that contributions to any grants from the Foundation were approved as contributions

5

that were proper tax deductions. Under these circumstances, it is not tax fraud. It is decisive, that

6

the projects funded by the Foundation were kept within the objects stated in the Foundation's

7

Charter, which is for humanitarian, research or environmental purposes. The possibility of a profit in

8

the long term does not make the allocation unlawful, because the aim is that, hopefully, the projects

9

will become self-sustaining. In the long term, earnings are not contrary to the objects of the

o

-'"

..
~

J:

en
<is

10

Foundation, nor is it contrary to the objects of the Foundation that a community of interests exists

11

between the Tvind organization and the projects receiving grants, or that many persons act within

12

both frameworks.

.J

'"
·
.''""

~

~

.

~ ~
~

III
IU

~

f'I

en

m

0

13

Danish legal expert, Henrik Christrup will also testify that if a foundation has a benevolent

0
0

~~~'?

14

purpose and the foundation gives a grant in accordance with such benevolent purpose to a private

.. ..
'"

15

commercial enterprise, such a grant does not constitute a violation of Danish tax laws, provided the

16

grant is actually applied to the benevolent purpose to which it is given. In Mr. Christrup ' s expert

"·

17

opinion, the decisive test under Danish law is whether the grant is actually applied to the benevolent

.'"

18

purpose, and not whether the grant is given to another benevolent foundation or to a private

.'"

19

commercial enterprise .

u O
0(
o , Ld
l:
~ ~
k.

0(

Z0

cr:

J:.J 0

II..

J

tt :

0

IaI 0

... .J

«

1'1

Z
WI
101 U IA
III ..;

~

:tit

... ~ III -

Z
~

_;:; U

:~~~

'"· -

.J
.J

Z
Z

....

'J:"
U

20

Additionally, Mr. Christrup will testify that if such a grant is not applied by the recipient for a

21

benevolent purpose, no criminal act or omission is committed under Danish law by the manager or

22

the board members of the granting foundation, provided the manager and the board members acted

23

in good faith and had no knowledge of the fact that the grant was not used for benevolent purposes

24

or was not intended by the recipient to be used for benevolent purposes. In such a case, the

25

authorities may be entitled to amend the tax returns of the Foundation that has given the grant, but

26

this is not a criminal issue for the manager and the board members of the granting foundation.

27

Professor Erik Werlauff, J.D., a Danish professor, an expert on tax and foundation law,

28

appointed by the Danish police to give his legal opinion regarding the tax and foundation issues were

277540. 1

10

 raised in this case, concluded in his March 21,2001 opinion: (1) that ifthere is a community of
2

interest between the contributors (donors), the board of trustees of the foundation and the recipients

3

of the distributions, it is of no legal import or consequence, so long as the funds are granted to

4

humanitarian, environmental and research projects, as specified in the statutes; (2) there can be an

5

extensive community of interest with many of the same individuals involved, as long as the funds are

6

used for the statutorily specified purposes; and (3) even if the foundation is structured so that the

7

actual purpose of the Foundation is to make the most of the possibilities of deductions in the Danish

8

tax legislation, the structure is not illegal, so long as the funds are used for the statutorily specified

9

purposes.

o

.-

It

<

:t

1/1

Lida Hulgaard, a legal expert on Danish tax law, who has co-authored a Danish text-book on

10

cIS
oJ
OJ

~

11

income tax, and has served on various Danish government appointed committees pertaining to tax

12

issues and legislation, can explain that a Foundation duly organized and existing under Danish law

13

may legally donate money to a commercial company or to an individual in order to implement the

14

purposes of the foundation within research, environmental protection or humanitarian relief all over

15

the world. She is in accord with all conclusions reached by Prof. Werlauff.

·

It
OJ

,

I/)

•

< •

.J

l!)

....

..
U)

II)

IIJ

CD

~

It,.

.(

oJ

~

11:.(

., 0 ; 0
iii 0 II: 0
J: ~ 0 0

:~~':'

0

u

o ...

IL.
<
o -,

~

c

:

.J 1'1

X .( ~
0"

11.1 iii

:I 11.1

.;

.-

~ ... :~
z :~~~

~

.

_;;; U

•

·

It
OJ

•

oJ
oJ

Z

•
0

Ms. Hulgaard can explain that the decisive factor is that such donation must be made for the

16

"

~

17

purpose of fulfilling the objectives stated in the articles(charter)lbylaws (which are combined in

18

Denmark) of the Foundation. There is no legal requirement, under Danish tax law or under Danish

19

Foundation law that a Foundation can fund only non-commercial or charitable entities in order to

20

qualify for favorable tax treatment, as grants may be bestowed to individuals, enterprises, and

21

companies, which are privately owned, commercial or profit-making, even ifthe grantee is outside

22

Denmark, so long as the purpose of the grantee is a "for the common good" purpose, which is

23

defined in the relevant Danish statutes, as being for humanitarian, environmental or research

24

purposes.

·
Z
OJ
I/)

Z
OJ

lI/)

-

It

:t

U

Ms. Hulgaard can also explain that it is not a violation of Danish law to structure, plan and

25
26

establish a Foundation to make the most of available tax deductions and to otherwise avoid taxation

27

under Danish legislation.

28

III

277540.1

11

 Flemming Heegaard, a Danish lawyer and tax expert, will explain the legal basis for
2

concluding that Mr. Petersen was, and has never been, an owner or director of the Foundation, or of

3

any entity that received funds directly or indirectly from the Foundation.
Additionally, Poul Jorgensen, former Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Foundation

4
5

can explain that it is he, and not Mr. Petersen who is the leader of the Foundation, and that, although

6

Mr. Petersen had input, as did many other long term members of the Teacher's Group, the

7

Foundation acted and made all of its decisions through its Board of Directors in the regular and

8

normal course of its meetings and affairs

9

B.

o

....-'"

THE RESEARCH PROJECTS AT ISSUE

X

I/)

olS

IFAS (promotion of research): "The Voice of the Third World"

10

1.

11

The United States Attorney's Office, on behalf of the Republic of Denmark, claims that IF AS

oJ

.

~

·

..'"

.

12

was merely a front organization formed by Mr. Petersen to channel money back to the Teacher

13

Group or other entities controlled by Mr. Petersen, under the guise oflegitimate research. (U.S .

14

Brief, p. 15). Such channeled funds are alleged to have been "disguised" as "research costs",

15

including salaries for "researchers" with no training, consultancy fees for IF. Parsons Inc., Cayman

16

Islands, allegedly a commercial corporation controlled by Mr. Petersen, which performed no

17

consultancy tasks, as well as the cost of leasing a ship for research activities, but were allegedly

18

transferred to B.B. Shipping, Ltd., another corporation allegedly controlled by Mr. Petersen. (Id.,

"''X"

19

p. 15-16).

U

20

"'..
.J

1'1

...

:

GI

<-'

~

CII::

..

1'1

0 ;: 0

161 0

U)

m :r

<
a:

0

-I

0 0

... u o ...

I')

~ 0 :~~':'
.J
.... «
z <

II)

~~~~

o ,

~

J

~~:~

)I."

:~~::'

Z
~

_;;; u

.

•

.'"

•

z

-

<

oJ
oJ

::E

·

..
Z

"'..Z

>-

277540. 1

Gitte Hector Nielsen, the former Chairman of IF AS, can explain that IF AS was founded in

21

1987 and created to carry out research by investigating the possibilities of combining known

22

knowledge and scientific results in ways which made them applicable and available to people in the

23

poor parts of the world. IFAS carried out most ofthe research projects ofIFAS, pursuant to a

24

number of research methods established in the objectives of the Foundation, which are legitimate

25

and viable methods of research pursuant to a number of expert witnesses who can explain the

26

different methods and their significance, as used by the project.

27

Dr. Samuel J. Noumoffis a Professor of Political Science, specializing in China and

28

Comparative Politics of the Developing World since 1967, at McGill University, Montreal, Quebec

12

 Canada, with a Ph. D. from New York University (1981). He has served as Director of McGill
2

University's Centre for Developing Area Studies (1988-1996), and as the Associate Director of the

3

Centre for East Asian Studies (1969 to 1981). He has published numerous articles, made many

4

conference presentations and academic lectures, won numerous awards and distinctions, and has

5

served in an advisory and consultant capacity. Dr. Noumoffwill testify that in his opinion, as an

6

expert in political science, the film medium is a legitimate form of research output, based on a

7

historical, and modem perspective.

8

Dr. Frank Andrews, is a professor of chemistry at the University of California since 1967,

9

who has also taught at Harvard University, Dartmouth College, and the University of Wisconsin-

10

Madison. He received a B.S. degree, with highest honors, from Kansas State University; an M.A.

11

and PhD in Chemical Physics at Harvard University in 1960. He teaches general chemistry, physical

12

chemistry, science, human values, and other courses on psychological unblocking and personal

13

empowerment. He has authored numerous publications on theoretical chemistry, traffic flow on

14

highways, and thermodynamics. He is the founding president of the Institute for Applied

15

Biomedicine, which is a nonprofit biomedical organization. Dr. Andrews has taught extensively on

·
'" ·

16

the nature and purposes of research in the physical, biological, and social sciences. He will testify,

-

17

that after reviewing the documents on the Voice of the Third World, he is astonished that anyone

'z"

18

would seriously question whether it fits the definition of a scientific research project. He will

...'"
III
-0:

19

explain that the project showed careful planning to fit it into a rather formalized framework often

20

associated with scientific research protocols. The progress reports and the final report were also

21

written to fit that framework of protocols. He can further explain that whether or not a project is

22

deemed research has nothing to do with its outcome. However, in this case, the outcomes were all

23

positive. All of the work that was planned was accomplished, and the intended research hypotheses

24

were verified. He will explain that in his expert opinion, even ifthe results were negative, that

25

would not have affected whether the project was appropriately called research.

0

.0:

c
x

!II

.e
.J

-

'"
-

~

0:

,

·..··
·
·
. ..'"

III
C
.J

0
0

"

CI

" 0

"U

.:

.
0

~

<

.J

i

0

... 0 cr 0

III

I

...

0

0 0
~ ~

..J

'" I

u

0'"

c
-,

"

-

,

.J I')

z ••

1&1 III U WI
~ III
• ~

-~

Z ... II 0

..
- ·-

"z
"-

«

-

l:

~

~ ~

III

~

z

0:

.J
.J

l:

z-

III

X

u

26

277540.1

Prof. Ran Greenstein, who teaches Sociology at the University of Witwatersrand , in

27

Johannesburg, South Africa, specialises in research methodology and social theory. He earned his

28

PhD in Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1991. He has studied, conducted

13

 research, published research reports, conference papers, journal articles, book chapters and books on
2

various issues pertaining to his specialties. He will explain and define the many types, meanings,

3

theories, and methodologies of research in support of his expert opinion that "there is little doubt in

4

my mind that the processes followed [in The Voice of The Third World project] reflected a solid

5

grounding in applied research practice, albeit not research of an academic nature." He will explain

6

the manner in which the project systematically collected and processed information regarding local

7

conditions and developmental challenges through information gathered with conversations with local

8

residents and experts, publications, libraries, and research institutions.

o

..-'"

9

In Dr. Greenstein's expert opinion, the work of the Voice of The Third World was done with

<C

:t

III

<IS

10

a consideration to the messages that would be conveyed to intended audiences, the likely impact of

11

the program, and the avenues of action following up on the information exchange. He will explain

12

that the participatory action research paradigm was used to collect, process, develop and

13

disseminate information and increase knowledge, with the participation of relevant parties on the

14

local scene. The outcome of the process was an increase in socially-useful knowledge due to a

15

process of systematic investigation, which is the essence of social research as defined and taught

16

world-wide.

.J

:::'"

'"

'"

.J
.J

-

~

z-

17

T. Duncan Holmes, President ofICA Associates, Inc. (ICA) and Executive Director ofICA

In

18

Canada, is a consultant, focusing on community consultation, strategic planning and leadership

In

19

development within communities and organizations for approximately twenty years.. He has trained

20

group leaders in facilitation skills, strategic planning and team leadership in five nations,

21

administered non-profit organizations in Canada and India, and designed, facilitated and developed a

22

Community Economic Department Strategy for various cities including: the City of York, the City

23

of North York, the Region of Sudbury, and the City of Burlington. He holds a B.A. degree in

24

Biology and Chemistry from Queen's University. He will testify that based on his review of all

25

relevant materials, The Voice of The Third World Project was an Action Research project: "Given

26

the timing of the project, this work was probably well ahead of its time and led the way for

27

programming that we regularly see on television today and accept as common practice" and that, "As

28

is typical of Action Research, it is a very practical, well targeted project. It demonstrated both the

'z"
..'"
-

'"

:t

U

277540.1

14

 possibilities of the approach that was being tested as well as the limitations. It set the stage for
2
3
4

further work to be done."
a)

The Voice of the Third World

Oeyvind Wistroem and Marie Lichtenberg will testify that The Voice of the Third World was

5

a research project whose the aim was to show that satellite television can be a tool in spreading

6

culture and bringing people around the world together. This was accomplished by giving European

7

viewers the possibility of watching television programs produced in and by the Third World. Also,

8

the implementor of the project (the station), All Europe Satellite Television Ltd., produced a new

9

kind of popular television series, involving a group of non-trained, common people traveling around

o

'"

10

·

.

.,'"

OJ

,

~

•

~

..

III

en

IIJ

CD

~

Oeyvind Wistroem and Marie Lichtenberg will testify how the project was executed. The

12

Voice of the third World became a reality-42 national television companies participated with the

13

programs, and the television series, "Return of the Marco Polo" consisted of 150 broadcasts. They

14

can further testify that all research hypotheses propounded for this project were tested .

:

a::

'" 0

0(

Z0

~ 0 a: 0
1:.J 0 0

:~~~

0

... u
II..
0(
o -,

III iii '" ill

«

~

0

I-

Z

~

.J

11

0

~

.J
C)

the world and their encounters with people along the way.

.J f'I

«

:J '"

II

._

~

~~~~
~ -;:;"
•
2

15

Poul Joergensen will testify about the application process, granting and funding of the

'OJ"•

16

project. He will explain how progress is monitored, and explain the expenditures of the funds

17

granted by correspondence and Board minutes.

)t.""

I- :

Z

.
-

<

.J
.J

l:

z·

.,

18

OJ

For three and one-half years, from May 1989, the satellite television channel, One World

Z

.,.
'"

19

Channel, broadcast approximately 1800 hours ofprograrnming to people all over Europe, and later

U

20

to Asian viewers via an Indonesian satellite. At the time of this project, there was no broad exposure

21

to news, cultures, daily life, and programs broadcast from Third World countries. CNN was not yet

22

widely known or available. These programs were produced in the third world, by third world

23

national television companies. They were presented, translated and sub-titled by One World

24

Channel, which also received and broadcasted programs from international organizations, like

25

UNESCO, UNICEF, and WHO, and from private development aid organizations.

OJ

X

26
27
28

277540.1

b)

Return of the Marco Polo.

The government claims that the Marco Polo was basically a vessel acquired for personal
pleasure and involved no legitimate research. Further, although the Prosecution characterizes "The

15

 Voice of the Third World" and the "Return of the Marco Polo" as different research projects,
2

Oeyvind Wistroem and Marie Lichtenberg will testify that "Return of the Marco Polo" was actually

3

part of "The Voice of the Third World" project. Oeyvind Wistroem and Marie Lichtenberg can

4

explain how this project was funded, and the expenditure of funds.

5

Oeyvind Wistroem and Marie Lichtenberg will testify that the weekly series, "Return of the

6

Marco Polo" consisted of travel broadcasts (156 thirty-minute televisions broadcasts, broadcasted at

7

the rate of one program per week for three years) produced by common, non-trained people aboard

8

the ship, 'Return of the Marco Polo' regarding their encounters with different people as they traveled

9

around the world. They utilized standard professional equipment, and their work was edited, first in

o

...-'"
:r

III

<II

10

Norway, and then by the crew, including sub-titling. They can document world-wide

11

correspondence commending these broadcasts.

oJ

OJ

3:

·
'"
OJ

In
IrJ

•

0

..J

:

01

l!)

...

cr: «

-

1'1

0 ; 0

VI

\II

0

m ::z:.J

-,

<l(

;

oJ

Gitte Hector Nielsen, the past Chairman of IF AS will testify that the Board of Directors of

14

IFAS decided to contract with an outside consultancy firm with international experience and

15

contacts. Their aim was to supervise and report on the research projects funded by IF AS, which were

16

outside of Denmark, where the Board members of IF AS all resided. Thomas Vaeth, a graduate

17

engineer, who had been engaged by J. F. Parson, Inc., and was chosen to be the consultant for this

18

purpose will testify that J.F. Parson, Inc., was an American (not Cayman Islands) company, with

19

international experience and contacts. He can explain further, as can Gitte Hector Nielsen, that Mr.

20

Petersen had no ownership or control of J.F. Parson, Inc., or the manner in which funds were

21

expended by or paid to this company, and that the fees paid for these services were reasonable

22

compensation.

W",Olll

::l '"

~

...

. '_
:

~

z :~~~

..
'" .

~

13

J.F. Parsons, Inc.

a:: 0
00

~ 0 :~~~
~ ~ O~~:

0
~

c)

12

I/)

..

-;;"

• -

<

OJ
oJ
oJ

:!O

·
Z
OJ
I/)

Z
OJ

lI/)

'"

:r
U

23
24

277540. 1

(i)

The Florida condominium.

Mr. Sten Byrner will testify that he-being the Chairman of La Societe Verte-by misleading

25

information initiated a transfer of US$500,000 from the Foundation to his personal account of

26

which money he paid U.S. $440,000 to the law firm Kline, Moore and Klein who were handling the

27

purchase of the Florida condominium. Mr. Byrner will testify that Mr. Petersen had nothing

28

whatsoever to do with the purchase, financing, funding or ownership of the Florida condominium,

16

 and that he (Mr. Bymer) did not inform him in any way about this transaction.
2

Chartered accountant David Swain from London, England, will testify that the amount of

3

$500,000 was almost simultaneously transferred from a private source to the project in Malaysia. He

4

will explain the origin of the funds which were used for the purchase of the Florida condominium,

5

testify that no Foundation funds were misused. Further Mr. Swain will confirm that Mr. Petersen

6 had nothing to do with this transaction. He has never seen Mr. Petersen's name on any documents
7

8

related thereto, nor even heard Mr. Petersen's name mentioned in this context.
d)

B.B. Shipping, Ltd.

o

-'a."

9

<

The government claims that the "cost of leasing a ship for research activities and similar

:r
Ul

<II

10

expenses was transferred to the corporation BB Shipping, Ltd., which was also controlled by

11

Pe[t]ersen" (U.S. Brief, p. 16).

.J
OJ

·
'"
OJ

,

Ul

«

~
III

12

•

6

II

:

Cl :

..

., 0

i

If)

101 0

II: 0

0

~ ~ ...!=~~
x - .

... u
... ..:
o ,

~
<
J

0 ~

z

.J 1'1
0(

III

W 101 U

;/I

.. III~ '"t- v: ~

~

\AI

_

~~~~
~ • ~ "
z
Z

..

'"· -

OJ
.J
.J

~

13

Shipping, Ltd., nor did he control the manner in which funds were expended regarding this research

14

project. Mr. Lausten can explain that funds were expended on necessary costs related to the

15

maintenance, leasing (at fair market value) and crew for the ship, 'Return of the Marco Polo '. He

16

can further explain that the ship and related expenditures were utilized solely for its stated legitimate

17

research objectives and accomplished successfully.

z·

18

OJ
Ul

Hans Jorgen Lausten will testify that Mr. Petersen had no ownership or control ofB.B.

e)

La Societe Verte and L'Energie Eternelle: Environmental Projects in

z

.
OJ

19

Ul

-

Brasil, Malaysia, Tahiti

'"

:r
U

20

277540.1

Lars Jensen, former Chairman of La Societe Verte and L 'Energie Etemelle will testify about

21

the manner in which two independent French Associations, La Societe Verte and L 'Energie

22

Etemelle, applied for grants for nature preservation and environmental protection projects. He will

23

explain how the grants were funded by the Foundation. Further he will explain the reporting of the

24

project's progress, activities, problems encountered, status and the expenditure of funds related to the

25

Environmental Project Floryl in Brazil; the Tropical Forest project in Malaysia; and the

26

Establishment of a Biogas Plant in Tahiti.

27

Professor Morten Knudsen, is an expert witness in forestry , with a Master of Forestry

28

Degree from the Faculty of Forestry, in Copenhagen, Denmark (1951). He will testify that the Brazil

17

 and Tahiti projects were fully legitimate, viable and worth while. Mr. Knudsen, has been a professor

....

2

of Industrial Development at University ofRoskilde, head of the Wood Department, Director of

3

Planning, Director General and Executive Advisor from 1990 to 1995 at the Danish Technological

4

Institute. He has also served in leadership positions in many national and international committees

5

and associations, including former Chairman of the Advisory Council to DANIDA, (the Danish

6

National Agency for International Development Assistance). He has many international

7

appointments, and is the author of publications in Danish and international journals related to

8

industrial research, development, education and forestry. He will testify that the concept behind

9

these projects was to develop some income-generating activities in the project areas, which, within a

10

number of years, will make it possible for the projects to be economically independent. At the same

11

time, the environmental goals are realized, without further support from the Foundation. There is no

12

nefarious objective planned or executed in these projects.

0

'"
III
J:

.a
.J

'"

~

..·
'"

VI

'"

.

··...'" .'"
c
0

.J

19

·

" 0

Z0

III
ID

III 0 0:: 0
1: .J 0 0

. .,'"

0

... I

'"

..
·-

~

0

~

... II.. II.. "

u

o

0

~

.J

~

-

,

.J "

z '" •

W III V

~ :r: ~ ~
0(

-

~

1&1

14

(i)

The Environmental Project Floryl in Brazil

The government claims that the Foundation paid almost 18 million DKK for a 170,000

II)

· ~ ~ -: ~

"z
".·
'"
-::E
.J
.J

13

~

15

hectare plantation in Brazil, claiming it to be a legitimate nature protection and research project,

16

when its real purpose was to allegedly establish a commercial, for profit forestry operation and self-

17

sufficient residential community for "comrades" in the Tvind organization.

z

· '"

z·

Jose S. Rivelli a graduate Forestry Engineer in Brazil (1968) and the Floryl Forest Manager

'"

18

..'"
..-

19

from 1982 through 1994, will testify how the forest had been planned and created as an

U

20

environmental project by Shell Brazil SA, the former owners of the forest, and that present owners

21

have continued with the environmental project.

III

z

VI

J:

22

277540.1

Mr. Knudsen, will explain in detail, the objectives, development, progress, problems,

23

accomplishments and status of this project, which led him to reach the following expert opinion:

24

"The Brazil project, with a purchase of a 104,000 hectare area in 1992, is a very

25

ambitious, giant project, in which the Foundation invested 2.1 million US dollars, and

26

which, in its progress so far, must be characterized as successful. There has been a

27

one megawatt biomass-fueled power plant erected, a wood industrial enterprise

28

created with good export of different wood products from the thinning wood, 350

18

 people from the local area are employed, and the project is, from the present year,
2

economically viable, such that both a replanting and a new planting of another 20,000

3

hectares will take place, as well as the continued maintenance of the natural reserves

4

can take place without the support from the Foundation."

5
6

(ii)

The Tropical Rain Forest Project in Sabah, Borneo, Malaysia

Again, Mr. Knudsen will also testify regarding about the objectives, development, progress,

7

problems, accomplishments and status of the Malaysian project, which led him to reach the

8

following expert opinion:

0

a:

.•

9

"The Foundation granted 15 million DKr in 1990 to a rain forest project in the Sabah

:t

en
ciI

10

area on Borneo, where a ruthless exploitation of the tropical rain forest is taking

11

place. The government has tried to intervene by issuing licenses to limit the felling.

12

The idea of the project was to acquire such a license and at the same time demonstrate

13

that it was possible to practice environment-friendly forestry combined with an

14

industrial wood production which went further than just exporting unprocessed raw

15

wood; that is, a better utilization of the wood and of, until now, non - or poorly

16

utilized wood. It succeeded to build up such an export oriented industry and to

17

employ approximately 200 local employees and to organize education for them and

18

their 100 children.

19

"Despite many attempts it did not succeed in acquiring a license for felling during the

20

project's three year lifetime, for which reason it would not be possible to fulfill the

21

project idea of combining nature-friendly forestry with an otherwise viable wood

22

industry. It was therefore decided to close the project, and the Foundation had to

23

write off a loss of approximately 4 million Dkr. In the local area, the project has had

24

inspiring effects on the existing enterprises and employees, but otherwise the

25

evaluation is that there has not been any environmental effects achieved. If the

26

experience can be used by the ones involved or by others is uncertain."

27

Jonas Israel, was the director of South China Sea Farming SIB, the recipient of the funds for

.J

-OJ
~

·

.

a:

,

..
OJ

·· .

•

0
0

.J

.
~

u
~

<
... <

~

.·

1'1
11.1
...

0

. ..,•
~

<

Z0

a: 0

Ii..

Ii..

... J: -

U

0'"

0
n
,

.J f'I

z < •

0

.J

0
0

J: .J 0

III

·

~ ~ ~~

:or: ,.. III 0

"z ~ x ~ ~
...- "_ w~ .,z ~
<
a:· OJ

.J
.J

··

0

-

l:

z·

.z
.OJ

OJ

....
a:

:t

U

28

277540. 1

the project in Malaysia. He will testify about the background of the project and how it developed.

19

 1

Professor Arne Wangel has been an Associate Professor in the Department of Technology

2

and Social Sciences at the Technical University of Denmark, since 1996. He has lectured and

3

studied at the School of Social Sciences in Malaysia, worked on many field assignments, authored

4

many research publications, and has held many national and international posts, including The

5

Danish University Consortium on Environment and Development, Industry and Urban Areas

6

("DANCED"). He is a sociologist, who has a Ph.D. from the University of Copenhagen, Denmark,

7

specializing in the Sociology of Development, Technology Transfer and Environment in Industry.

8

He will testify regarding the circumstances surrounding the termination of this project due to

0

a:

..-

9

'"
III

inability to obtain a timber felling license, which would have required the payment of bribes to

:t

<IS

10

authorities, as corroborated by social science researchers in Malaysia. He will also testify on the

11

manner in which the remainder of the grant was fully repaid to the Foundation after the project was

12

terminated. He will testify about the viability and propriety of the Foundation engaging in a

13

Malaysia Rain Forest Project. Based on his professional and expert knowledge of the Foundation's

14

Rain Forest Project, he will explain its course of development.

.J

-

w
~

a:·

..
'" . .
,

w
1/1

0
0

.J

Cl
~
~

u

.
~

0

~

<

.J

·

1/1

<
... <
0
w 0

11'1

20

It
oJ 0
... 11. IoL.

m :r
0

u

I&.

.,'"
·
"-z
...

f')

•

oJ 1"1

z <•

~ ~ ~~
Z ... IfI 0

~ :r ~ ~
0(

~

_ •

· -

a:
w

.I: -

0'"

0
0

N

IIJ ..

15

Professor Wangel will also testify that the criteria for evaluating the need for a sustainable

16

(rain) forest project. The Foundation's Board of Directors, in its evaluation and assessment of the

17

Rain Forest Project in Malaysia, was parallel to DANCED's prioritizing in its Malaysia land

18

program of multi-use management of forest resources. This program utilized timber, taking into

19

consideration the forest's influence, e.g., on land-scape erosion, protection and storage of fresh water

20

resources, regulation of rivers and of micro-organisms, protection of the bio-diversity and

21

establishment of possibilities for eco-tourism.

0
Z

<

N

.J
.J

-

::>

z·

w

1/1

z
W

I1/1

-

a:
:t

U

22
23

277540.1

(iii)

Establishing a Biogas Plant in French Polynesia (Tahiti)

Knud Elverskov will testify that he studied the application, review, grant, correspondence,

24

Board Minutes, project reports and project accountings for the Tahiti project. He concluded that the

25

biogas project was an environmental project, which, from 1991 to 1997, accomplished its objective.

26

The objective was to protect nature on the island of Tahiti, by establishing a biogas plant, in

27

connection with a pig farm, that removed pollutants from animal manure and transformed it into a

28

valuable resource which was used for electricity and fertilizer. He can explain his conclusion that

20

 reduction of this pollution falls within the area of environmental protection by substituting for fire
2

wood, which reduces the cutting of trees, and is a good way to protect the environment.

3

Knud Elverskov, is a private consultant and business owner, consultant to DANIDA

4

(Denmark's International Development Agency), a specialist in assistance to starting entrepreneurs,

5

an advisor and program officer in UN agencies, the Russian Ministry of Energy, the German

6

development agency GTZ, the World Bank. He consults for a range of private companies in relation

7

to projects in Africa, Asia and Russia. He has a Ph.D. in Sociology from the University of

8

Copenhagen, an advanced degree from Copenhagen School of Economics and Business

9

Administration and a Masters Certificate from the Royal Danish Navy.

o
II:

....l:

(/)

Knud Elverskov will testify that Tahiti project was to protect the natural environment. This

10

oj!

in line with similar projects supported by the Danish government both now and in the past. He

11

IS

12

will explain that a Biogas plant is an uncontroversial means to protect the natural environment; an

13

objective important to the Danish government. Denmark has actively supported the development

14

and establishment ofbiogas plants for many years both locally and internationally within DANIDA

15

(the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) and DANCED (the Ministry of Environment) .

-

II:
OJ
IIJ

,
•

~

=
~

C>
..

II'!
IIJ

II:

~

«

i

1'10
0
~ 0 It 0

en

m r..J

0 0

~ 0 :~~~
.... u 0 I- .J
... «
z « II
I')

o -,

III 11/ U roO

~

::J III

.-

« .; ~~:~

.J

~ :~~~

IL.

- w "

N

- -

II:
OJ

N

Z

<

-"
-"

l:

Finally, Mr. Elverskov will testify that there are many applications for funding ofbiogas

16
17

projects, which are difficult and have a high failure rate. He will opine that the price of 5.9 million

18

DKK (paid by the Foundation) for a relatively large biogas plant is not unreasonable. Historically,

19

the Danish company Kruger Bigadan, in 1990, offered to sell and ship to a Danish harbor, a biogas

20

plant for 4.6 million DKK, including assembly manuals (this would have been a more expensive

21

choice of plant). In his expert opinion, the salary of911,000 DKK for management was not

22

unreasonable and that transferring the ownership of the plant to a private individual for $10 was an

23

expression of the fact that the realistic market value of the project was close to zero - and that this

24

was, at the same time, the best way to allow the continuation ofthe project.

25

C.

-

Z

OJ
IIJ

Z
OJ
IIIJ

-II:
l:

U

26

HUMANA PEOPLE TO PEOPLE.
Poul Joergensen and Bodil Ross Soerensen, both former Chair Persons of the Board of

27

Directors ofthe Foundation, will testify that at the June 30, 1996 Board of Director's Meeting, the

28

Foundation considered an application from Humana People to People for a grant ofDKK 4 million.

277540. 1

21

 The Board approved the application and granted the funds for the project, "AIDS Research and
2

HOPE Projects in Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Angola." They will explain the application

3

and grant process for this project and how it was implemented through the national country

4

associations of Development Aid from People to People, being: DAPP in Zambia, DAPP in

5

Zimbabwe, ADPP in Mozambique, and ADPP in Angola. They will also explain the project

6

reporting and accounting of expenditures.

7

Marie Lichtenberg and Snorre Westgaard will testify that the development of Humana People

8

to People was in two phases: The first, dedicated to research and development, and the second, to

9

establishment of HOPE Centers in the above named African countries, and later in Malawi and

10

Namibia. The HOPE Center Model used in the African countries consists ofa centrally located

11

building (and satellite HOPE stations for those who live too far to be able to regularly attend the

12

Center), staffed with a project leader, a center leader, a doctor, a nutritionist, a counselor, a

13

laboratory assistant, and two persons working with outreach programs in the local community, and

14

additional volunteers organized in action groups with ten to fifteen people in each group. The five

15

main activities (each involving 20 to 25 activities) of each HOPE Center are: 1) contact, training and

16

education; 2) health services; 3) practical and applied research; 4) opinion forming activities on a

17

national level; and 5) outreach programs.

o
a:

.<

:t

Ul

<II

a: •

'"
oJ
oJ

~

.
Z
.,'"
Z
.,..'"
-a:

18

Marie Lichtenberg, Snorre Westgaard, and Dr. Marianne Thomsen, a Danish medical doctor,

19

will testify that another major project approved by the Board of Directors of the Foundation for the

20

International Humana People to People Movement was 800,000 DKK in February 200l. This grant

21

was for "TCE-Total Control of the Epidemic", which the Board viewed as a unique program for

22

combating HIV/AIDS in Africa. This program, which is on-going successfully, is based on the

23

philosophy that only people themselves can take control of the HIV epidemic by addressing the

24

pathological consequences for those already infected.

:t

U

25

Ms. Lichtenberg, Mr. Westgaard and Dr. Thomsen will explain that TCE organizes the

26

countries systematically in geographical areas with 100,000 people each. Each TCE area is again

27

divided into 50 TCE fields with 2,000 people--each field having a responsible Field Officer, who

28

informs the people in his field about HIVI AIDS, and educates them on how they can change their

277540.1

22

 lives to prevent getting infected. They will testify about the Passionates, an organized group of
2

volunteers in the field, who are close partners to The Field Officers; together, they mobilize people

3

in their field to get tested so they know their own HIV status, establish and run popular clubs (in

4

schools, sport clubs, Positive Living Clubs, etc.) to get people together, break down existing

5

prejudices about HIV and those infected, and foster an open exchange of information and solutions

6

related thereto. They can further explain that TCE educates home based care for those infected with

7

HIV, a humanizing effort, and has many on-going activities to finance and develop growing

8

nutritious food for sick people and the many children who have become orphans due to AIDS.

9

Dr. Marianne Thomsen will testify about Pilot Study, of which she is in charge, which

0
0:

....l:

III

.a

10

focuses on the effectiveness of using simple medicines, vitamins and nutritious food to slow the

11

progression of the disease. This Pilot Study is also funded by a grant from the Foundation, and she

12

will testify about the application, grant, project reporting, and expenditures.

.J

OJ

~

-

0:
OJ

· ··
·
-: :
~

..
UI

0
0

.J

<
... <

Cl
In

UI

~

m

u

:t

~ ~

oJ
11.

0

II.

<

.J

.J 1"1

• < •

~

Marie Lichtenberg and Snorre Westgaard will testify that TCE publishes many pamphlets

14

used as tools for informing, mobilizing and instructing people. These pamphlets are written with

15

ease of understanding in 10ca11anguages about HIV/ AIDS and related health issues. The prosecution

16

has alleged in the Case Summary, in Section 6.2, that $270,000, was paid from the Foundation to

17

Mr. Petersen's and Kirsten Larsen's entire disposal, on the pretext that it was being used for the

18

AIDS project. Ms. Lichtenberg and Mr. Westgaard will testify how $170,000 was transferred

19

directly from the Foundation to Humana People to People and spent for the HOPE project mentioned

20

above. They will also testify how $100,000 was separately transferred from the Foundation to

21

Humana People to People for the TCE project.

11.1"1

:z: - •

0'"

0

13

00

... -,..u
- ;:~~
...

Z ... 11'10

"-z

~

.(

l:

~ ~

~ ~

·· •
_ •

LL

0

-

<

0:
OJ
.J
.J

-

::E

-

z

OJ
UI

z

..
OJ

UI

0:
l:

U

22

277540. 1

Dr. Bent Faber Vestergaard is a specialist in clinical virology, who, for the past 35 years, has

23

been involved in AIDS research, and served as the had of the National reference laboratory for

24

virology in Copenhagen. He is the Director of the International World Health Organization

25

Collaborating Centere for Virus Reference and Research, and a member of the AIDS advisory

26

committee for the Danish National Board of Health. As an expert in AIDS research, treatment and

27

control of this epidemic, Dr. Vestergaard will testify about how the mechanisms of the Humana

28

People to People TCE program works and why it is so su.ccessful, especially in light of the

23

 magnitude of AIDS in Africa, and its threat to all African communities. Because ofthe unique
2

knowledge and experience in communication with and education of people in southern Africa,

3

involving the training and information of field officers reaching out to every household of the

4

community, the unanimous expert opinion of professional HIV virologists and epidemiologists is

5

that the strategy developed and employed by Humana People to People, is the only way to

6

implement knowledge and change of attitude towards the HIV infection and AIDS . This is a

7

prerequisite for the necessary change in behavior that ultimately can reverse this devastating

8

epidemic.

0

.0:
~

I
III
~

9

Jack A. Blackshear, Sr. Vice President, Xpronet, Inc., and Former President of Cono co

10

Angola, Ltd., will testify about the involvement and successful cooperation of Conoco Angola,

11

Development Aid for People to People (ADPP) Angola and the Government of Angola in projects

12

which include a fish drying factory, construction of a hospital and school in Ambriz, repair of

13

electrical lines in Luanda, importation of three fishing boats that were used as models for building

14

boats specifically designed for Angolan conditions and needs, and numerous other agricultural

15

projects. Mr. Blackshear can explain that Conoco invested over $10,000,000, almost all with ADPP,

16

and that all of the money went directly placed into the projects and not for administration costs.

17

With the exception of some projects delayed by the war, most were completed on time, on budget

18

and with the full cooperation of the Ministry involved. He will testify that his opinion as a manager

19

in a foreign environment is that while it is normal to think of philanthropy as a good thing, but

20

generally not something not too connected to the ultimate profit motive of an enterprise, his

21

experiences in Angola indicate that this is not always the case.

oJ

-OJ
~

0:
OJ

,

~

oJ

.
~

u

...

0

~

<
~

.
·.
.

II)

Cl

·

0
0

<
" • <
fI

0 ~ 0

a:

II)

III 0

m

1: .J 0 0
~ 10. I&. n
... 1: - ,

0

u

.,
·
"-z
~

LL

01-

.J '"

z < •

~ ~ ~~
z
~
0(

~ ftI 0

1:

~

··

• •

· ·

0:
OJ
oJ
oJ

0

~ ~
IaI

•

0

z
<

z·

l:
OJ
II)

z

.
OJ

II)

0:
I

U

22

Gerald J. Bender, a Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern

23

California for the past 21 years, is the Past Director of the School of International Relations at the

24

University of Southern California, and previously, was a professor of International Relations for

25

seven years at the University of California at Los Angeles and University of California at San Diego.

26

Professor Bender has visited Southern Africa more than eighty times. He has visited the Humana

27

People to People Projects over the last fifteen years on at least 20 to 25 occasions. He is intimately

28

familiar with the workings of the Humana People to People. He will testify about his personal

277540. 1

24

 discussions regarding the work of this organization with President Jose Eduardo dos Santos of
2

Angola, President Joaquim Chissano of Mozambique and Nelson Mandela, former president of

3

South Africa, and his current wife Graca Machel, who was the wife of the deceased president of

4

Mozambique, Samora Machel. In addition, he has spoken to several ministers who are directly

5

involved with this organization in their respective countries, including the Minister of Health of

6

Zimbabwe, the Minister of Health of Botswana, the Minister of Humanitarian Resources in Angola,

7

Albino Malungo, and the head of the AIDS program in Mozambique, Janet Mondlane. All are of the

8

opinion that Humana People to People is doing unparalled work among humanitarian organizations

9

in Africa. Professor Bender is intimately familiar with the Humana People to People anti-AIDS

10

program in Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique and Botswana, which countries have adopted this

11

program as their national approach to dealing with AIDS .

o

..-'"
0(

l:

CIl
~

.
'"

W
0(

•

.J

:

C)

I-

..

III

1/1
kI

m

II..

U

~
1I.

0

.c:

a ,
~

«
..J

)t"

01

a:

«

13

humanitarian nature of this organization in southern Africa, and of the teacher training colleges in

0 ~ .J I")
Z 0( In
101 '" U ill
::l ... . ..

14

Angola built, staffed and run by Humana People to People. He was impressed that all the teachers

I- :

15

trained at these teacher training colleges desired to work in rural areas of a country that is at war .

16

D.

VI 0

;: 0

'" 0 0:: 0
1:.J 0 0

~~~~
~

~

~~~~
i;'. - W l)
Z

"

'"

W
.J
.J

Professor Bender will testify about his personal observations of the public utilitarian and

12

UI

"

.
Z

<

0

LEGAL ISSUES RELEVANT TO THESE EXTRADITION PROCEEDINGS

~

.

~

17

Z
W

18

UI

1.

The Danish Extradition Treaty does not authorize income tax evasion as an
extraditable offense.

Z
W
I-

19

UI

-

The Prosecution alleges that the Danish Extradition Treaty provides that "offenses relating to

'"
l:
U

20

willful evasion oftaxes and duties" are extraditable offenses, pursuant to Article 3(11) and (24)(B).

21

(U.S. Brief, p. 26). However a review of the historical background ofthe drafting ofthis Treaty, and

22

in particular of Article 3 (24)(B)(as it is currently written) makes it clear that the Danish Treaty does

23

not authorize income tax evasion as an extraditable offense.

24

Bent Unmack Larsen, a Danish legal expert in criminal proceedings, formerly a Professor and

25

co-author of the leading Danish university text-book on criminal law and procedure, and now in

26

private legal practice in Denmark. Mr. Larsen will testify that after preliminary contacts between the

27

Unites States and Denmark, Denmark terminated the old extradition treaty then in force between

28

these two countries, in 1967. The reasons stated for the termination of the old treaty was that, after

277540. 1

25

 the Danish Parliament had enacted legislation on extradition (Statute no. 249 of June 9, 1967),
2

Denmark had decided to terminate all existing extradition treaties with all non-European countries as

3

incompatible with the new statute law. As far as the European countries were concerned, in 1962,

4

Denmark had ratified the European Convention of 1957 on the Extradition of Criminals.

5

Mr. Larsen will also testify that in 1969, the United States presented Denmark with a draft

6

treaty between the two countries and asked for negotiations to start as soon as possible. This

7

initiative was followed by negotiations between delegates from the two countries in Copenhagen

8

from June 1 through June 4, 1970, and in Washington, D.C., from September 14 through

9

September 17, 1970. The negotiations on the part of Denmark and in the United States were, for the

o

-'Q."

•

:t

III

<II

10

greater part, carried through by the Danish Ministry of Justice, and on the part of the United States,

11

by the United States Department of State.

.J

OJ

~

.
'"
'"

.
OJ

.J

12
01

~ G: <

l!)
..

f'lO; 0
II: 0

It!
ILl

II)

iii 0

CD

:t

0

-,

WWUI4

oJ

0

~

..

iii

~

oJ

z :~~~

III t- W _

-;;

'"

"

"
OJ
.J
.J

June 10, 1970 (Draft I). The negotiations in Washington, D.C. resulted in a draft treaty, dated

14

September 17, 1971 (Draft II). The final United States draft for the treaty dated June 16, 1972 (Draft

15

III) was handed over to Denmark on this date, and is (with corrections of typographical mistakes)

16

identical with the signed treaty between the United States and Denmark, dated June 22, 1972.

~ ~

.(

~

13

0

~ 0 :~~':'
~ ~ o ;~:
~

Mr. Larsen will testify that the negotiations in Copenhagen resulted in a draft treaty, dated

~

:

~
Z

<

l:

.

17

Z
OJ

'Z"

.

Mr. Larsen will testify that, based on a review of the 3 drafts of the treaty and the minutes of

18

the negotiations in Copenhagen, which- apart from an introductory statement by the head of the

19

Danish delegation- is in Danish, as well as the minutes ofthe meeting in Washington, D.C. (also in

20

Danish), and certain other material the language which is currently in Article 3(24)(b) has been

21

revised as follows:

OJ

-'"
'"
:t

U

277540. 1

22

Draft I, Art. III, no. 23: "Smuggling, defined to be the act of willfully and knowing

23

violating the customs laws with intent to defraud the revenue by international traffic

24

in merchandise subject to duty."

25

Draft I, Art. III, no. 26: "(Offenses against the laws relating to the sale or

26

transportation or purchase of securities or commodities.) (This provision is to be

27

revised later.)

28

Draft II, Draft III, and Treaty, Art. 3, no. 24: "(a) Offenses against the laws relating to

26

 importation, exportation or transit of goods, articles, or merchandise; (b) Offenses
2

relating to willful evasion of taxes and duties; and (c) Offenses against the laws

3

relating to international transfers of funds."

4

The minutes from the negotiations in Washington show only the following comment regarding the

5

change shown above from Draft I to Draft II, "'Gaither'(Mr. Rowan Gaither, U.S. State Department)

6

suggested that no. 23 (now no. 24) should be formulated like this: (citing the text quoted above).

7

This was accepted by the Danish party."

8

Mr. Larsen will testify that Draft I, art. III, no. 23 was a verbatim quotation from art. II, no.

0

....-'"

9

.,

10

head of the Danish delegation at the negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark would be inclined to

11

compare with the original United States draft treaty.

21 of the United States-Sweden convention which, according to the introductory statement by the

l:

(/)

.J

-

'"

~

·

''""
'...J"

·.
<
... <

.'" '"

l!)

·

u

Mr. Larsen will testify that a supplementary convention to this treaty, dated July 28, 1981 ,

"

0

i:
a:

0

13

expanding the list of extraditable offenses to include, e.g. , tax evasion, was struck in the Committee

14

on Foreign Relations of the United States Senate and never ratified. A supplementary convention to

15

this treaty, that did not include tax evasion, was entered into on May 24, 1983, and the earlier

16

supplementary convention was then withdrawn from the Senate.

III 0
0
::t ..J 0 0
~ IL. IL. 1'1

ID

0

. .,..

;:

12

0

IL.

o

U

0

:z: - •
~ .J t'I

z <•

LI.I III V 1111

... "z·
I/..
~

<

~ III
Z

. "
'"' III 0

~

:t

.(

· -

'"
'"
.J

~

··
•

~ ~
III

~

'" 0

z
<

.J

-

17

::f

z·
'"
'z"
...'"
'-"

Mr. Larsen will testify that at the negotiations in Copenhagen, Denmark stressed the political

18

importance to Denmark of affording the offender requested for extradition a protection more in

19

accordance with modem trends in the law of criminal procedure than had hitherto been in force. On

20

the same occasion, Rowan Gaither, of the United States Department of State, indicated that, from the

21

United States' perspective, it was necessary to have a catalogue in the treaty ofthe sort of crimes to

22

which the treaty would apply, because of the differences in penal legislation in the different states.

23

At the Washington, D.C. negotiations, Carl Salans, of the United States Department of State repeated

24

Mr. Gaither's requirement, and according to the minutes, added further: "The catalogue was

25

exhaustive, so that extradition could not be granted for a crime not mentioned in art. 3, irrespective

26

of whether the committed act in a given case constituted a crime in the state where the criminal was

27

apprehended." There is no mention whatsoever in the minutes, or in any other documents of the

28

Danish Foreign Office about extradition for income tax evasion.

'l:"

U

277540.1

27

 2.

There is no duality of criminality in that a Foundation with the same

2

characteristics as that in Denmark does not exist in the United States tax laws or

3

in any other American laws.

4

5

M. CherifBassiouni, in International Extradition: United States Law and Practice (4th Ed.
2002) states, at p.465-467:

6

"Dual criminality refers to the characterization of the relator's criminal conduct

7

insofar as it constitutes an offense under the laws of the two respective states. It is a

8

reciprocal characterization of criminality that is deemed among the substantive

9

requirements for granting extradition.... Treaties list or otherwise designate

o

.,.
0:

-

1:
(/)

<IS

·
'"

10

extraditable offenses and also require dual criminality Both of these requirements

11

characteristically contain an element of mutuality.

12

"Dual criminality and extraditable offenses are closely linked. The first is conceptual.

13

It means that the crime charged in the requested state is also a crime in the requesting

14

state. The second, extraditable offenses, means those offenses that are deemed

15

subject to extradition. In treaty practice, these offenses are listed in the treaty ...

0:

~

Ul

~

.J
C)

:
.... a:

ILl

~

CI'I

U'I

m

«

:~~~

0

0 .... ..I

z «

f')

III

IU 1&1 V loll
:::I w . "

~

.J

~

0

IIJ

.... u
k.
«
o ....

«

0

~ 0
0 0:: 0
:t..J 00

..
V)

•

.,

!II:

~

I- :

LL

-

III

~

~ :~~~
•

•

-

0:

•

0

z

<

16

'"

.J
.J

:l!

17

"Dual criminality is intended to ensure to each of the respective states that they (and the

18

relator) can rely on corresponding treatment, and that no state shall use its [processes to

19

surrender a person for conduct which it does not characterize as criminal. The requirement of

20

dual criminality does ... benefit the relator insofar as he can avoid the processes of justice of

21

the state in which the conduct was allegedly committed, if ... the same conduct is not also

22

deemed criminal in the requested state."

·
Z

'"

Ul

Z

'>-"
Ul

0:

1:

U

23

Mr. Bassiouni states that there are three approaches to determine whether the offense charged, even

24

if criminal in both states, satisfies dual criminality: "1) whether the act is chargeable in both states

25

as a criminal offense regardless of its prosecutability; 2) whether the act is chargeable and

26

prosecutable in both states; and 3) whether the act is chargeable, prosecutable, and could also result

27

in a conviction in both states." (Id., p. 467)

28

277540. 1

There is no counter-part in American law for a foundation structured in the manner in which

28

 the Foundation at issue is structured. There is no provision in the tax laws for either the creation or
2

the tax treatment of such a Foundation or its donors. As such, the alleged conduct is neither

3

chargeable, prosecutable, nor could it result in a conviction in the United States, and the requirement

4

of dual criminality cannot be satisfied as to any act alleged in this case.

The proceedings against Mr. Petersen are politically motivated.

5

3.

6

Henrik Nebelong is a Barrister in Denmark in 1974, admitted to the Supreme Court of

7

Denmark in 1980. He is a partner in a law firm with offices in Copenhagen, Denmark and in Berlin,

8

Germany. He was a board member of the Danish Literary Translators' Guild from 1988-1981 ,

9

having majored in classical languages in high school. From 1999 to 2000, he was Head of Mission

10

in Pristina, Kosovo for Avocats sans Frontieres (Attorneys without Boundaries). He has served as a

11

Board member of various companies; written articles and studies on company law, business law, and

12

the law of procedure related subjects; and also written various articles and studies on Classical Music

13

and on Danish literature. In 1995-96, Mr. Nebelong represented the Tvind-school, 'Den rejsende

14

H0jskole' and a couple of other Tvind-schools in negotiations with the Danish Ministry of

15

Education, but has not had any other professional or private relations to persons or institutions with

16

affiliation to Tvind.

o

....-'"
J:

U)

<il

·

'"

OJ
In
..

•

.J
t.!)

:

0

~

I- Q: 0(

..

., 0 ;: 0

I/)

U')

W 0

III

In

:t.J 00

I[

0

~ 0 :~~'?
~ ~ O~~:

o -, ~
~ .. ~
~

.J

~
Z

101 0 ill
III

v: ~

III '"' II.! -

~ ~ ~

;;:

_;;;

t)

•
'"

«
«

<

OJ
.J
.J

::'

z

17

10
Z·
OJ
In

Mr. Nebelong will testify that, historically, school policy is and always has been a

18

fundamental issue in Danish politics. The Popular movements (Christian, nationalist and socialist),

19

focusing on education policy, have fostered the so-called ' folk-high schools ' . These anti-elite-

20

schools have no exams. Throughout the 20th century, the schools were seen as a democratic

21

stronghold and were a breeding ground for young politicians. The schools, independent of the public

22

educational system and thus called ' free schools', were however funded by the state.

Z
OJ
IIn

-

'J:"

U

23

24

parliament throughout the century, they did in fact steer the funding-policy. Key concepts of the

25

Ministry' s policy were 'freedom for those who think differently' , and ' confidence instead of

26

control'; as for the quality of the teaching, tolerance did prevail.

27
28

277540. 1

Mr. Nebelong will testify that as the popular movements maintained a solid majority in

Mr. Nebelong will explain that after the students' revolt in 1968, the aforementioned popular
movements (and also their representatives in Parliament) were sympathetic in their attitude towards

29

 Mr. Amdi Petersen's 1971-application for public co-financing of a new free school. This positive
2

attitude towards Tvind and its founder lasted in the Ministery-circles throughout the 1970's, while

3

Tvind grew to national proportions and it did not even change fundamentally during the years of the

4

conservative-liberal government in the 1980's.

5

The Ministry of Education, at least in the early 80's, had obtained a reasonably good insight

6

on Tvind's economy, knowing about the schools' planning in common, their elements of a barter

7

economy and their being organized under a system of foundations. The officials were also aware of

8

the intensive exploitation of the state-subvention-possibilities, a practice which was, however, also

9

common in other 'free schools' , such as those of the labor movement.

o
II:

..-

"

I
Ul

10

<II

Mr. Nebelong will testify that in 1979, Mr. Amdi Petersen retired from all official positions

11

at Tvind, and since then his whereabouts have not been known to the pUblic. In little Denmark

12

(5 million inhabitants), this has virtually turned him into a 'public obsession', which, in light of the

13

historical background has set the stage for the instant criminal proceedings .

-

II:
OJ

,

1/1

•

~

:~

~
..
11'1

m

IL.

0
U

I&.

0(

0

«

i

0

0:

0

:t..l 0

0

1&1

:~~~

0'"

..I f'I

-<

Z
11\
will U III

o ..,
~

0:

'" 0

(II

1&1

~

~

:l III

14

From the mid-80's, the Danish National Audit Office (Rigsrevisionen) constantly, and with

.-

0(

~.. !t-:~

.J

Z

:~~~

15

growing strength, criticized the Ministry of Education' s lack of control of all the 'free schools' ,

16

which led to a change of attitude among the Ministry staff. Public investigations against Tvind were

17

initiated at the beginning of the 90's, but did not disclose more about the Tvind-economy than that

18

which was, in substance, already known.

~ •- ~ z"
-

-

II:
OJ
.J
.J

•

<

~

0
~

::E

-

Z

OJ
1/1

Z
OJ

t-

19

1/1

Mr. Nebelong will testify that in the 1990's, the enrollment of new students to the 'free

II:
I

U

20

schools ' in Denmark fell drastically, intensifying the competition between them. Simultaneously,

21

dissatisfaction with Tvind spread, climaxing in a vehement attack on Tvind launched by the

22

chairman of the Organization of the Free Folk-High-Schools in Denmark, a fellow-partisan ofthe

23

then Minister of Education. Soon, the Minister reacted, at first by trying to sharpen the statute on

24

control in general, but then suddenly changing politics. In 1996, he proposed legislation stipulating

25

that a certain number of Tvind-schools, listed by name, were for all eternity excluded from the

26

normal financing by public funds . It has been asserted that the Minister did so in order to avoid also

27

excluding labor-movement-schools from public funding.

28

In spite of massive warnings from legal experts of all political colours, the statute was

277540.1

30

 adopted by Parliament. The High Court of Eastern Denmark found this statute in full compliance
2

with the Danish Constitution. However, 3 years later, the Supreme Court ruled that this legislation

3

was in conflict with the Constitution's principle of la separation des pouvoirs ("separation of

4

powers"), and thus null and void. This was the first time in Danish legal history that a statute was

5

found unconstitutional. Danish doctrine had so far been adherent to the positivistic tradition,

6

abolishing the idea that so-called metaphysical concepts (e.g. , 'justice') might constitute barriers to

7

the omnipotence of Parliament.

8

Mr. Nebe10ng will testify that during the short reign of this statute, it had been illegally

o

.."-

9

<!l

10

established a register of Tvind-teachers and school-leaders in conflict with the Danish Data

11

Protection Act. When the statute was first proposed, the Ministry of Education accompanied it by

12

instigating criminal investigations against 7 Tvind-schools for misuse of public funds. After 1 %

13

years, the Public Prosecutor did, however, enter a nolle prosequi, stating that he did not 'in the rules

~ 0 :~~~
~ ~ O~~:

14

governing public funding ... find legal basis for the punishing ofpossible violations of the rules '.

~~~~

15

Concerning the question of fraud in relation to the Danish Criminal Code, he stated that he did not

16

find 'sufficient evidence that a physical person did objectively violate the legal provision, and that

17

such person in this context did act on purpose '.

<C
J:
Ul

administrated. Without permission from the Data Protection Board, the Ministry of Education had

oJ

.

::.
.."
III

<C

•

~

0

: rc :

..

In

0 ;

a:

0

III

U)

LoI 0

III

ED

1:.J 0 0

0

o , 101 LoI V 1ft
3:
::l III • ~
< ~.. ~~~~
.J

Z
~

_;:; CJ

N

• •

.
"

Z

<

N

oJ
oJ

~

.

.
.

18

-

19

the accusations against Mr. Amdi Petersen and others in the 2002-case, but there are a number of

20

identical themes involved. After the Supreme Court ruling, Tvind-schools could again freely apply

21

for public funds. The schools also discussed claiming damages from the State for the funds lost

22

1996-99. In 2000, however, the Minister of Taxation instigated new criminal investigations, this

23

time concentrated on the Tvind-foundations, and their board members. As charges in this connection

24

were brought against Mr. Amdi Petersen (who had not, for 22 years, held office in any known Tvind-

25

entity), he was, and contrary to normal procedures, not asked by the police to appear for

26

interrogation (his address in Miami, Florida, being well known to the authorities). Instead an

27

international warrant for his arrest was issued, and his appointed attorneys in Denmark were directed

28

to not inform Mr. Petersen of the proceedings or the warrant against him.

Z

III

Mr. Nebelong will testify that the accusations dealt with in 1996-97 were not identical with

Z

IIII

"
J:

U

277540.1

31

 Mr. Nebelong, based on his professional knowledge and expertise will testify that, "The case
2

against Mr. Mogens Amdi Petersen is a highly political case. Denmark has, so far, dealt with Tvind-

3

related cases in an atypical manner. The risk of violation of the principle of 'fair trial' must be

4

deemed higher in this case than in most other criminal cases." He will testify that the official

5

administrative politics towards Tvind and its leaders changed dramatically during the 1980's due to a

6

changing political climate. Activities previously tolerated were now categorized as illegal, and

7

Tvind-practices were judged by other and more severe standards than the practices of other free

8

schools. A hectic over-eagerness seems to have been dominant among the political establishment:

9

The Danish Government, with maximum publicity, instigated criminal investigations that only led to

0

.0:

'"

1:
C/l

<G

10

the withdrawal of charges, the Parliament passed the first unconstitutional statute in Danish history,

11

and the Ministry of Education established an illegal register.

oJ

'"
~

·
'"

.

0:

Ul

'"

oJ

~

~

u

...

0

~

<
~

,

·.
0
0

~

<
• • <

"

12

Mr. Nebelong will testify that a special political background for the actual case may well be

13

found in the risk of public expenditures that the Danish state now has to face, due not only to new

• < •

14

claims by Tvind-schools for funding, but also due to claims for damages related to the non-funding-

z,... ., 0
~ :t ~ ~

15

period. All this gives rise to the question as to whether it will be possible to conduct a fair trial

16

against Mr. Petersen in the Danish Courts. Clearly problems of prejudice -- like nature (bias) tend

l:

z·

17

to occur more often in smaller countries. Certain irrelevant intentions seem to have influenced the

'"

18

Danish administration, the Parliament, and even the High Court of Eastern Denmark in the Tvind-

..'"

19

case in the past. (It must be noted that, according to the Danish Administration of Justice Act, the

20

High Courts, and not the Supreme Court, render the final appellate decision in the current case

21

against Mr. Amdi Petersen, as far as the question of guilt is concerned).

., 0 ;: 0

Ul

0 CI: 0
J: .J 0 0

IIJ

m

...

0

\I..

IoL.

"

II.. .I: ,
0'" .J 1'1

U

'"

-, ~ ~ ~ ~

·
"-z

..
· ·-

I/..

... ~ w -

-

'" ·

z

<

0:

oJ
oJ

Ul

z

Ul

-

0:

1:

U

22

277540. 1

Clark Mills Pratt is a United States citizen; recipient of a Bachelor's Degree in sociology

23

(magna cum laude) from Harvard University, in 1987. He has been a teacher since 1987; and is also

24

a certified teacher in Denmark. He currently resides and works in Asnaes, Denmark as a full-time,

25

tenured private school teacher of physics and history, English, mathematics, computerlinformation

26

technology. Mr. Pratt will testify that he met Mr. Petersen in 1994 after working since 1987 with

27

two organizations related to Tvind. From 1987 to 1995, Mr. Pratt was a study-tour teacher, leader of

28

solidarity worker teams to Africa, and fund raising director for the Institute for International

32

 Cooperation and Development (IICD) in Williamstown, Massachusetts. This Institute was based
2
3

upon the same fundamental principles, and started with the assistance and advisory support of Tvind.
Mr. Pratt will testify that from 1991-1995, he spent 24 months in Angola and Zimbabwe

4

working with American volunteers at schools for street children and with health

5

education/mobilization projects run by Humana People to People. From 1995-1997, he worked as a

6

teacher at the Necessary Teacher Training College (the "Teachers College") in Denmark, yet another

7

part of Tvind. He had a leadership position in the development of the (IICD), in the planning and

8

administration ofthe four projects with which he worked in southern Africa, and in the pedagogical

9

and practical development of the Teacher's College. He will testify that in none of these situations

o

.-'•"
:r
U)

<II

10

was anyone getting rich, neither the people working long, hard days with students and street

11

children, nor in the central offices of Humana People to People, nor in the educational "think tanks"

12

which were hired by the Tvind schools, including the IICD, to develop ideas for better teaching

13

methods. In none ofthese situations was anyone exerting control for their own personal benefit, or

14

trying to bend laws, hide profits or create front funds or paper organizations.

.J
OJ

~

·
'"
'"
•

~

.J

:

OJ

.
,

~

... a:

..

"0

0

~

0(

i

0

In

U)

III 0

a:

IaI

CD

:z:.J

00

0

~ 0 :~~~
~ ~ O;~:

o -,
~

WIIIV~
:I 11.1 . -

« .; ~ ... :~
.J

Z

~

~~~~
-;:;"Z

· N

.

15

Mr. Pratt will testify that by 1989 it had become difficult to recruit new volunteers, since a

16

few unsatisfied students and former teachers had joined together with an aggressive anti-Tvind

17

movement in Denmark to try to shut down the IICD and also the Tvind schools in Denmark. He will

18

also testify regarding the law passed by the Danish Parliament in 1994 which closed (by removing

-'"
'"

19

funding) more than 30 Tvind schools, but was ultimately found to be unconstitutional by the

U

20

Supreme Court of Denmark and repealed.

'"

OJ
.J
.J

N

~

·

Z

OJ

'Z"

.
OJ

:r

21
22

movement to eliminate them. Political persecution has become an economic persecution of an

23

educational movement, which since 1972 has gone against a fundamental part of Danish culture

24

because they offered ordinary children the best education, and made ordinary adults into excellent

25

teachers. Mr. Pratt will testify that Mogens Amdi Petersen is an idea leader; he is not a boss, owner,

26

or shareholder. His only contact with the group was ideological. The allegations against

27

Mr. Petersen over the past 20 years or so in Denmark are purely politically motivated.

28

277540.1

Mr. Pratt will testify that the treatment of Tvind by the Danish government is a continuing

Bends Hansen is the editor-in-chief of a major political opinion magazine in Denmark and an

33

 author of books about sociology or literature and politics, poems, hundreds of articles in periodicals,
2

and newspapers and documentary programs for Danish radio and television. She is a graduate of the

3

University of Copenhagen, with a Master of Arts Degree in literature. When the Tvind schools

4

started more than 30 years ago, there was a widespread sympathy in Denmark with the idea the

5

group espoused. A practical school, Tvind was founded on pedagogical principles like experience,

6

(travel) events and training; the ideas were in harmony with community, creativity, and equality.

7

The idea of joint economy, time and work was also in tune with the time. The joint economy, based

8

on a group of a few teachers (who grew, over time to a group of several hundred teachers) combining

9

their salaries and sharing their talents, skills and assets, enabled the activities of Tvind to spread to

o
a:

.-

<

r

.,
III

10

11

dozens of development projects in many countries .
Ms. Hansen will testify that, through the years, Tvind grew so big, that it became too

a:
w

1/1

12

conspicuous. Denmark is a small country with strong equality ideals, where it is unpopular to

13

become too conspicuous. The Danish government, ministry and prosecuting authority have during

14

the last decade intensified the pursuit of the Tvind schools in the country. The government

15

investigations have revealed only technical errors of details, which would be found in most of the

16

independent schools if they were pursued with the same zeal. The pending case about the

17

Foundation is the latest attempt by the Government to "get" the Teacher's Group. The Foundation' s

18

records have been inspected by the relevant authorities every single year, and the Foundation has,

19

without a doubt, been scrutinized more closely than other equivalent foundations.

< •

~ ~~:

~ 0 ~ 0
0 « 0
0 0

..
In
IIJ

~

11)

IaI

0

~~ ~ ':'

m :r .J

I&.
u o ... . J "
.... -<
z «
o ., 101 IW V III
I/)

~

::l 101

. -

« ,; ~ ... : ~
.J

Z

~~~~

~

_ ~ U

-

•

Z

-

<

a: •
w
.J
.J

~

-

Z

W
1/1

Z
W

>1/1

-a:
r
U

20

277540.1

Ms. Hansen will testify that there is an irrational motive of revenge behind this persecution -

21

a kind of political crusade against a community which has been an irritation to the establishment in

22

Denmark since its inception. All financial support was taken away from the schools through special

23

legislation which the Supreme Court unanimously ruled to be against the constitution in 1997. This

24

abuse of power still continues today - the schools have survived because they have been able to

25

balance the admission of students differently, so that the majority of the country's municipalities

26

make use of them. Children and youth by the hundreds, who do not have a chance any other place,

27

are helped every year by these schools. Ms. Hansen will testify that, in her expert opinion on the

28

political issues in Denmark, this matter is political, in all the senses of the word.

34

 IV. CONCLUSION
2

In light of the above, MOGENS AMDI PETERSEN requests that this matter be dismissed in

3

its entirety and that he not be certified as a fugitive for extradition, because the Government has

4

failed to establish any of the required elements for extradition.

5
6

DATED: May 24, 2002

Respectfully submitted,

7

8
o
0:

....-

9

J:
III

10

o!I

11

·

0:
W
<II

,
•

..

~

oJ

:

'"

... II: 0(

III
ID

iii 0 II: 0
:t.J 0 0

~

.. "0;: 0

11'1

III

~

II..
IL.

0

U
0(

o ,
3::

.0(

.;

.J

Z

:~~~
0

12

0

I-

.J f'I

Z < \/I
101 '" U ~
::J iii . -

!I-:~

13
14

:~~~

15

-

16

-

~ • ~ 'z"
•

0:
W
.J
.J

•

<

17

l:

·

Z

18

W

'"
Z

W

...

19

-

<II

0:

J:

20

U

21

22
23

24
25

26
27

28

277540. 1

35

 DECLARATION OF ROBERT L. SHAPIRO
2

ROBERT L. SHAPIRO being duly sworn, deposes and states as follows:
3

1.

I am an attorney at law duly licensed to practice law before all state and federal

4

courts in the State of California, and I am counsel for petitioner MOGENS AMDI PETERSEN in
5

this matter.
6

2.

I make this Declaration in support of Mogens Amdi Petersen's Memorandum of

7

Points and Authorities Re: Extradition Hearing of my own personal knowledge and if called as a
8

witness, I could and would competently testify thereto.

o

.-

It

9

•

3.

:r
(/)

the Memorandum of Points and Authorities Re: Extradition Hearing .

.J

W

11

~

4.

·

It
W
VI

fA

~

•

opinions and witness statements.

0
01

.J
C)

I-

IX

0(

..

1'1

0

Z0

fI)

'"'

0

It

III

1: oJ 00

o .,

13

0

~ 0 :~~':'
~ ~ O~~:

5.

~~~~

Z

~

-;:;

· •

It

•

W

.

require translation and detailed explanation, as well as the involvement of hundreds of individuals
15

and a multitude ofprojects, I deem it essential to present the testimony oflive witnesses at the

~

Z

•

16

0

extradition hearing to enable the Court and the parties to fully comprehend and evaluate the issues in

~

.J
.J

Due to the complexity of this case, the massive volumes of materials involved which

14

101 III V loll
:J iii . .-

~

« .; ~I-:~
.J

The summarizations truly and accurately summarize the contents of the expert

12

•

w

I am familiar with all of the experts' opinions and witness statements summarized in

10

<is

17

~

this case, rather than presenting same through declarations.

·

Z

18

W

VI

6.

Z

..

W

I believe that only through the presentation of live witnesses can accurate translations

19

VI

-

be made and can the crucial documents, accountings, exhibits, charts, diagrams, and records be fully

It

:r
U

20

examined and understood in light of the complex legal issues involved in this case.
21

7.

Finally, I believe, in the interest of justice and constitutional due process, that live

22

witness testimony is essential to preserve Mr. Petersen's rights in this case.
23

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
24

foregoing is true and correct.
25

Executed this 24th day of May 2002 in Los Angeles, California.
26
27
28

277540.1

1

 PROOF OF SERVICE
2
3
4

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California; I am over the age of 18 and
not a party to the within action; my business address is 2121 Avenue of the Stars, Eighteenth Floor,
Los Angeles, California 90067.

5

On May 24, 2002, at the direction of a member of the Bar of this Court, I served the within:

6

MOGENS AMDI PETERSEN'S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS
AND AUTHORITIES RE: EXTRADITION HEARING;
DECLARATION OF ROBERT L. SHAPIRO IN SUPPORT
THEREOF

7
8
o
a:

.<

9

..,

10

1:
1/1

on the interested parties in this action, by delivering an original thereof in a sealed envelope
addressed to each of said interested parties at the following address( es):

SEE ATTACHED LIST
11
a:·
'"

12

Ul

< •

0

-I
~

:

01

t- G:

.(

If!

II)

III

~

r:Il

0

IL

U

:r..

«

o -,
~

'" 0 :;: 0
11/ 0 It 0
r .J 0 0

: ~~ '?
0 ....

13
14

Ld III U toll

~

.( .; !

.J

oJ I')

z .( .,

D

III

. -

to :

~

Z

: ~~~

~

_

;

15

(BY MAIL) I am readily familiar with the business practice for collection and
processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. This
correspondence shall be deposited with the United States Postal Service this same day
in the ordinary course of business at our Firm' s office address in Los Angeles,
California. Service made pursuant to this paragraph, upon motion of a party served,
shall be presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date of postage meter date on the
envelope is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing contained in this
affidavit.

l)

•

Z

a:• •-

<

'"

16

D

.J
.J

17

l:

·
Z

'"

18

Ul

Z

...'"

19

Ul

~

(BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
offices of the above-named addressee(s).

D

(BY FACSIMILE) I caused such documents to be delivered via facsimile to the
offices of the addressee(s) at the following facsimile number: .

a:
1:

20

U

21
22
23
24

25
26
27
28

277545.1

(BY OVERNIGHT DELIVERY SERVICE) I served the foregoing document by
Federal Express, an express service carrier which provides overnight delivery, as
follows. I placed true copies of the foregoing document in sealed envelopes or
packages designated by the express service carrier, addressed to each interested party
as set forth above, with fees for overnight delivery paid or provided for ..

Executed this 24th day of May, 2002, at Los Angeles, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct.
~~ ~
PAULETTA OLIVER J

ES

 SERVICE LIST
2
3
4

5
6

The Honorable Victor B. Kenton
U. S. Magistrate Judge
U.S. DISTRlCT COURT, CENTRAL DISTRlCT OF
CALIFORNIA - WESTERN DIVISION
312 North Sprin Street
Courtroom H, 9t Floor
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: 213/894-1831

r

7

8
o
a:

.-

9

~

10
11

12
l3

14

15
a:

•

16

'"

.J
.J

l:

17

<II

18

.
z
'"
Z

..'"

19

<II

-a:

l:

20

U

21

22
23
24
25

26
27

28

277545 .1

Matthew E. Sloan, Esq.
Assistant United States Attorney
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
Complaints Section
1200 U.S. Courthouse
312 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, California 90012
Telephone: 213/894-5416
Facsimile: 213/894-0141