SSI  Home           R A I D   Home            e n g l i s h   p a g e s


Zürich, 23rd November 2000/cs 

registered letter
Public Prosecution Zurich


8026 Zurich 

Advokatur Gartenhof 
Matthias Brunner 
Viktor Gyoerffy 
Claude Hentz 
Barbara Hug 
Peter Nideroest 
Lisa Zaugg
Barbara Hug 
Gartenhofstrasse 15 
P.O. Box 9819 
8036 Zurich 
Telefon 01 241 63 62 
Telefax 01 241 24 02 
MwSt-Nr. 277 373 
PC 80-40561-7 

 Dear Sirs / Madams

In the case

1. Mr. ANGER,
c/o SSI, Postfach 2122, 8031 Zürich,

c/o SSI, Postfach 2122, 8031 Zürich,


Police officers

concerning Abuse of Authority according to Art. 312 StGB, etc

Legal Proceedings

concerning the incident at Klosbachstreet on 5th September 2000

are instituted.


1. The two persons instituting legal proceedings authorize the signatory (See power of attorney of 17th October 2000).

2. Mr. Soulless and Mr. Anger live at Klosbachstreet in Zurich in one of the demolition houses giving way to the construction project at the Kreuzplatz since November 1997. Date of demolition and start of construction is still not definite.

3. The doorbell of my clients unexpectedly rings short after 8 a.m. on 25th August 2000. Two survey engineers ask for entry to mark a spot on the roof for a construction pole to be erected. The two engineers could easily do their job, but they were asked to announce their visit written or by phone in the future because time scheduling will guarantee someone being in the house.

The tenant of the shop in the ground floor was on holiday in that time. My client referred to this fact and emphasized the importance of an appointment.

4. My clients did not hear anything until being torn out of sleep by noise on 5th September 2000. The front door was obviously broke open and they heared voices in the entrance demanding: "Open up, Police, or we will kick in the [2nd, Apartment] door." The door instantly broke open. Several police officers in uniform and undercover-agents forced entry to my client's apartment. My clients were put up to the wall - in underpants. On their request for a search warrant they got the reply: "We do not need one." My clients were forced to stay guarded in the livingroom while the officers faned out in the house. Only on repeated request an officer standing around admitted having instructions to guarantee access for the construction workers to the roof.

5. The construction workers could easily reach the roof to erect the pole through entrance and stairwell.

Meanwhile the police officers hunted through my client's apartment in first and second floor and in the attic room packing in goods everywhere. My clients watched one officer taking photos in the livingroom and in the adjoining workroom, where else they were not able to watch.

My clients had to show their IDs. Mr. Anger gave his Press-ID, Mr. Soulless his passport. The police officers took both IDs.

Mr. B allowed my clients to get dressed after about one hour. All officers left the house soon after that.

6. About two hours later three police officers return to Klosbachstreet not only to bring back my client's IDs but to force entry again with the remark: "To take some more pictures." My clients were forced to stay guarded in the first floor while an officer took photos in the house.

Thereupon one of my clients took photos himself. The film was instantly confiscated on production of a receipt.

7. Corporal H. together with three police officers returned to Klosbachstreet on Sunday evening 10th September 2000. They brought back the confiscated film meanwhile developed by the police and a confiscated videotape as well. My clients got back these items on production of a receipt. The other goods were forwarded to Mr. Zuend, head of task force "Blaze and Attempts".

My clients could get back two further items at the police station on 27th September 2000. The rest of the confiscated goods stored in corporal H.'s office is disposed by the cleaning team. My clients received three photos of the wall-collage taken by the police in their living room in the first floor as well. Mr. Zuend claimed not more photos being taken inside the house.

8. During the police action on 5th September 2000 corporal H., officer S., W., M. and M.
and undercover-agent Mr. B. as well announced their names. At least six other officers (two females among them) refused to announce their names.

9. My clients got to know the reason of the police action being the home-owner's assertion of refusal of acces for the construction workers. Apart from the fact that two survey engineers could easily enter the house on 25th August 2000, the further visit of workers at a certain point of time was never announced to my clients. Apart from that the police action on 5th September 2000 was improper and disproportionate.

It would have been appropriate to ring the doorbell, to wait a moment until my clients open the door, then to get directly to the roof through the stairwell. The law does not cover in no case any other action.

So the officers hunted through my client's apartment without search warrant. Some urgency can not be provided afterwards because the instruction for the police was totally different.

My clients watched police officers packing in several goods without drawing up a protocol (a.o. a newspaper edited by my clients, more printed matter, a video tape dummy, film-props, videotapes, etc).

Now law covers the demand for IDs to take them away. Nobody has to show ID in his own home. There was no reason for that.

By handing over the press-ID a police officer must be aware to have a person in front of him against whom no legal sanctions (house-search, confiscation) are allowed to implement (see Art 27bis StGB).

The confiscation of several items and the photographing of my client's private rooms exceeded the entitled authority of the police much too far.

10. All police officers act as civil servants. They misused their entitled authority by the state. They snooped around in my client's private property. Because of the already unnecessary instruction to guarantee access to the roof, the action of the police officers served an explicit unproperly purpose finding its expression in the confiscation of goods and the taking away / developing of films and videotapes.

The action of the police officers was also unproportionate. If the home-owner gave such a statement not being screened by the police, then two police officers would have been sufficient to drop in on Klosbachstreet, and not that flying squad. The police officers must have been aware of their not dutiful acting.

Serious disadvantage stroke my clients by the behaviour and the action of the police officers. They were hold guarded nearly naked in a room for quite some time and deprived of their personal freedom without legal basis. Their private property was confiscated, viewed (development of the films) and partly destroyed. Two doors were damaged and windows broken. The legal protection of Mr. Anger according to Art. 27bis StGB was disregarded. My clients could not take part in the house-search.

There must be intervention against such behaviour and action of the police. Police can not be tolerated misusing their entitled authority by the state in such a way. Mr. Zuend of Criminal Investigation Department and responsible for the police action was required to give his comment on the raid at Klosbachstreet in my letter of 19th October 2000. The command of city police Zurich received a copy. There was no reaction until now. Such abuse should not be allowed to "sit out".

With plea and petition for a criminal investigation.

Yours faithfully

Lawyer B. Hug

Power of attorney



Der Kleine Hirnfick

P i c t u r e s   w e   l o v e   t o   s e e  !
Part 1:  W I T H  C H A I N S A W S !
Part 2: 
W I T H  O P E N   F L A P …  The confiscated photos!

Part 3:  
S U N D A Y   M E S S E N G E R   S E R V I C E !

W i t h  t h e  w e a p o n s  o f  c u l t u r e   . . . 
New!!!    K L I C K  H E R E  ! 

No.  6'666'667
Switzerland is a democratic country, where artists have the choice between prison, armed resistance or exile.

  B L U T G E I L     F O T O     G A L L E R Y     Part I
What the censor wanted to withhold from you -  and how uninhibited "average spectators" respond to it!
B L O O DB A T H   I N   U R D O R F   ! ! !       T H E   P I C S   ! !
C u r r e n t   n o w  :     S L O W  G R I N D  ! ! !        V e r s i o n     1 . 5
Update 20.11.01   A R T   I N   J A I L

SSI  Home           R A I D   Home            e n g l i s h   p a g e s