Rogatory

The Colombian Rogatory Letter to Austria

Since the beginning of the arrest of Ing. Hendrik van Bilderbeek, Jorge Lozano and Gilma Flechas we have requested the Colombian Government to issue a Rogatory Letter to the Austrian Government with respect to the outcome of the criminal investigation held against Elena Lowen (former Social Development Director Llanos Oil).

The Austrian criminal investigation was initiated at the request of the DEA.

2004

Within two months after opening the criminal case “Austria versus Elena Lowen”, the Austrian (Innsbruck) prosecutor abruptly dismissed the case on 16 July, 2004 for lack of evidence of any criminal wrong-doing.

Officially the dismissal of the criminal investigation against Elena Lowen meant that neither Hendrik, Jorge* and Gilma can be further kept in Colombian custody.

*Jorge Lozano passed away during his custody for failure by the Colombian Government to treat his cancer.

30 September, 2004. The night of Hendrik’s arrest the DAS took all the Austrian court documents and had them translated from German to Spanish. Fiscal Manosalva has been aware of the dismissal of the criminal investigation in Austria since beginning of Hendrik’s arrest. Colombia declines to have any knowledge of the dismissal of the Austrian criminal investigation in order to maintain Hendrik and Gilma in jail.

2007

Summer 2007, The Colombian Government confirmed it had issued a Rogatory Letter to the Austrian Government and the Austrian Government had issued an immediate reply.

However, on September 4, 2007, we learned the following information from the Colombian Ambassador Gen. Serrano to Austria;

“averigue con el consul y no ha llegado la peticion” with other words the Colombian Embassy in Austria has no knowledge of receiving a Rogatory Letter for delivery to the Austrian Government?!

One day later Judge Acosta confirms to our lawyer Gloria Alzate receipt of Reply by the Austrian Government to the Colombian Rogatory Letter and confirms that the Austrian Reply (court file) is being translated?!

Several days later the Judge advises that there’s no budget to translate the 700+ folios from German/English to Spanish.

25 September, 2007, the Judge advises Gloria that the translator is absent until 29 October, 2007! And translation will take at least three months!

Coincidence or wilfully, The US State Department and The Austrian Foreign Ministry confirm both “04 August, 2007” as the magic date that each of their Ministries of Justice are replying to the Rogatory letter?!

Colombia has confirmed that the Austrian Reply to the Colombian Rogatory Letter is with a translator assigned by the Colombian Government in Bogota, Colombia. We have requested a copy of the Austrian cover letter as proof that Colombia did receive a reply from Austria on the Colombian Rogatory Letter.

05 October, 2007, The Colombian Foreign Ministry confirmed to Hendrik that Judge Acosta has a copy of the Austrian cover letter and that we can request a copy.

12 October, 2007, contrary to the foregoing statement issued by The Colombian Foreign Ministry, Judge Acosta issues a statement denying having received a copy of the Austrian cover letter?!

The week of 22 October, 2007, The Dutch Ambassador has been told that also the Austrian cover letter is under translation, therefore no copy can be given?!

The Austrian cover letter [verbal note] of 09 August, 2008 accompanying the court file of Ms. Lowen in reply of Colombia’s Rogatory Letter is released and confirms only the transfer of the court file, but purposely fails to make any reference that the court case of Ms. Lowen had been dismissed and closed since 16 July, 2004.

The Colombian Rogatory Letter to Austria is surrounded in a cloud of mysterious circumstances, namely, (1) The Colombian Rogatory Letter is dated 09 November, 2006, but doesn’t get forwarded by The Colombian Embassy to the Austrian Government until 19 June, 2007? (2) The Colombian Rogatory Letter addressed to the Austrian Government only states “Colombia versus Andres Velez et al”. How does the Austrian Government know that this request pertains to the court case “Austria versus Lowen” kept in the Innsbruck Court? (3) The Austrian Government has confirmed that it did reply to the Colombian Rogatory Letter, then why doesn’t a formal request signed by a judge appear anywhere in the file of Ms. Lowen kept at Innsbruck Courthouse?

2008

14 January, 2008, The Austrian Ministry of Justice replies to attorney Weben that a separate file exists at the Innsbruck Courthouse with a copy of the Colombian Rogatory Letter?!

06 May 08, Legal Petition Hendrik van Bilderbeek versus Colombia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs containing questions with respect to the Rogatory Letter Austria.

8 May 08, Attorney Dr. Weben gives a second presentation at the Dutch Foreign Ministry and proofs that there is a major difference between the authentic Lowen Innsbruck Court files and the court files presented by the Colombian Foreign Ministry to the Colombian Court.

Dr. Weben has more interesting points like:

  • Why did Colombia take 17 months from the moment of receiving the Lowen Innsbruck Court files to deliver these documents to the Colombian Court!
  • How did Colombia know about Ms. Lowen?
  • How did Austria know where to look for Lowen’s file?
  • How was it possible to release Lowen’s file without Lowen’s strict consent?
  • Why did the Bundeskriminal Ambt want to prevent Dr. Weben to have access to the complete file of Lowen [the Austrian Judge makes a written notice to overrule this request]
  • Most compelling is the DEA statement having “existing proof that Elena Lowen is part of a criminal organization”. What proof? Who provided the proof? Which criminal organization? This statement by the DEA was obviously not true as The Innsbruck Court concluded [1] no criminal wrong doing of any kind and [2] Elena Lowen was not part of a criminal organization!

05 June, 08. The Austrian Interior Ministry replies to an inquiry letter of Dr. Weben filed 18 March, 08. confirming that the investigation was initiated by the US DEA.

Rogatory Letters between Colombia <-->The United States of America

29 July 2005: Reply USA to Colombia Rogatories 04 Nov 2004 & 25 Jan 2005:

Requested by Colombia: Information of any on-going investigation against Llanos Oil and/or Albert van Bilderbeek in Southern District of Florida
Reply USA:

  • Includes Llanos Oil bank statements of Helm Bank Miami
  • Confirms no investigation against Llanos Oil and/or Albert van Bilderbeek

25 February 2005: Rogatory USA to Colombia

Requested by USA: Information on Llanos Oil & van Bilderbeeks in Colombia

  • identifies Llanos Oil and van Bilderbeeks as money launders & narcotics traffickers working on behalf of the Pannunzi brothers

25 April 2005: Reply Colombia to USA Rogatory 25 February 2005

  • Colombia’s District Attorney ‘pretends’ is not aware of an investigation in the USA against Llanos Oil and van Bilderbeeks and would like to learn more about any of these investigations

07 August 2007: Reply USA to Colombia Rogatory 26 June 2007

Requested by Colombia: Information on Llanos Oil and van Bilderbeeks in USA
Reply USA:

  • We can not locate any criminal records of the mentioned individuals without further identifying information
  • Colombia should contact DEA agent Hegarty stationed in Bogota concerning any investigation against Llanos Oil and/or Albert van Bilderbeek

Question: How can USA not find any information on Llanos Oil and van Bilderbeeks as;

(1) 25 February 2005 US Rogatory to Colombia clearly identifies Llanos Oil and van Bilderbeeks as money launders & narcotic traffickers.

(2) 27 July 2006: US Ambassador uses Llanos Oil & van Bilderbeek as prime example of success of ‘Plan Colombia’

How The Colombian Foreign Ministry deceits The Colombian Judge with a false translation of US Rogatory Reply;

The most striking of the false translation by Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs is the last sentence of the U.S. Rogatory Reply “the case against Albert van Bilderbeek is open“!

Rogatories between Colombia <--> Mexico, Panama and UK

Requested by Colombia: Information on Llanos Oil and van Bilderbeeks
Replies Mexico, Panama and UK all negative!

<< Back to Hypothesis | Continue to Court Hearings >>