Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05100/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05100-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Oliver Hilsenrath
Plaintiff
United States of America
Defendant

Document Text:

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OLIVER HILSENRATH,

Plaintiff,

 v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-05100 WHA

ORDER GRANTING 

MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Pro se plaintiff Oliver Hilsenrath moves to enjoin United States Department of Justice,

Criminal Division, Office of International Affairs (“OIA”) from returning to Switzerland proof

of service of process of a Swiss order. Defendant moves to dismiss plaintiff’s action on the

grounds that plaintiff lacks subject-matter jurisdiction and fails to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. For the reasons stated below, this order GRANTS the motion to dismiss.

STATEMENT

The Treaty Between the United States of America and the Swiss Confederation on

Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (the “Treaty”) has been in effect for the last three

decades. Article 22 of the Treaty provides (Beeler Decl. Exh. C at 18–19):

1. The competent authority in the requested state [here, the

United States] shall effect service of any procedural

document, including a court judgment, decision or similar

document, which is transmitted to it for this purpose by the

requesting state [Switzerland]. Unless service in a

particular form is requested, it may be effected by

registered mail. The requested state shall, upon

Case 3:07-cv-05100-WHA Document 18 Filed 01/03/08 Page 1 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

application, effect personal service or, if consistent with the

law in the requested state, service in any other form.

2. The requested state [the United States] may refuse to

effect service of legal process on a person, other than a

national of the requesting state [Switzerland], calling for

his appearance as a witness in that state if the person to be

served is a defendant in the criminal proceeding to which

the request relates.

* * *

4. Proof of service shall be made by a receipt dated and

signed by the person served or by a declaration specifying

the form and date of service and signed by the person

effecting it.

The Swiss government issued an order in the Swiss criminal case. The Swiss order was

entitled, “Provisional Suspension of Investigation and Cessation of Criminal Proceedings.” The

OIA mailed Hilsenrath the Swiss order in early September 2007 by certified mail. Hilsenrath

signed the return receipt. The OIA, however, has not yet returned proof of service to the Swiss

government. 

Ten days after service of the order, unless an appeal is made, Hilsenrath’s family assets

will be confiscated. Hilsenrath therefore attempts to halt service of the Swiss order by filing an

“Amended Motion for a Writ of Injunction” in United States v. Hilsenrath, CR 03-00213 WHA. 

He alleges that service of the Swiss order violates the United States Constitution and

international law. He therefore requests that the OIA be enjoined from returning proof of

service to Switzerland. In the government’s view, the ten-day countdown after which the

Swiss order will be effective occurs when the OIA officially notifies the Swiss authorities that

Hilsenrath was served rather than the date he actually received service. The government

requests that the motion be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and the failure to

state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

ANALYSIS

This order holds that the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over Hilsenrath’s

claims. Because the action must be dismissed on this ground, there is no need to address

whether Hilsenrath failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Case 3:07-cv-05100-WHA Document 18 Filed 01/03/08 Page 2 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 1

 Unless indicated otherwise, internal citations are omitted from all cites.

3

“Article III of the Constitution confines the federal courts to adjudicating actual ‘cases’

and ‘controversies.’” Allen v. Wright, 468 U.S. 737, 750 (1984). “A claim is moot when the

issues presented are no longer live or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the

outcome. The basic question is whether there exists a present controversy as to which effective

relief can be granted.” Outdoor Media Group, Inc. v. City of Beaumont, 506 F.3d 895, 900–01

(9th Cir. 2007).1

Under the terms of the Treaty, Hilsenrath was served. Treaties negotiated between the

United States and foreign nations “stand[] on the same footing of supremacy as do the

provisions of the Constitution and laws of the United States.” Asakura v. City of Seattle,

265 U.S. 332, 344 (1924). Furthermore, “[t]he clear import of treaty language controls unless

‘application of the words of the treaty according to their obvious meaning effects a result

inconsistent with the intent or expectations of its signatories.’” Sumitomo Shoji America, Inc. v.

Avagliano, 457 U.S. 176, 180 (1982). 

According to Article 22 of the Treaty (emphasis added), “[u]nless service in a particular

form is requested, it may be effected by registered mail. The requested state shall, upon

application, effect personal service or, if consistent with the law in the requested state, service

in any other form.” Here, Hilsenrath received the Swiss order by certified mail, and he signed

the return receipt. Application of the words of the treaty according to their obvious meaning

would not effect a result inconsistent with the intent or expectations of the signatory nations. 

It is difficult to imagine how construing Hilsenrath’s receipt of the Swiss order by certified

mail as service under the Treaty would be somehow inconsistent with the original intent of

United States and Switzerland at the time of signing. The Treaty’s requirements for service

have been satisfied, and the date when OIA officially notified the Swiss authorities of service

has no bearing on the actual date of service — nor the ten-day countdown. Hilsenrath’s request

Case 3:07-cv-05100-WHA Document 18 Filed 01/03/08 Page 3 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 Defendant argues that Article 22(4) of the Treaty provides that, as long as the United States

government does not return the signed receipt, service is incomplete. This reading is incorrect. First,

subsection 4 states that proof of service — not service itself — shall be made by a receipt dated and signed by

the person served or by a declaration specifying the form and date of service and signed by the person effecting

it. Second, this subsection clearly states proof of service is made when the person served dates and signs a

receipt, which Hilsenrath did.

4

to enjoin sending proof of service to the Swiss government is therefore moot. The Court lacks

subject-matter jurisdiction over Hilsenrath’s claims.2

Hilsenrath contends that the United States government is obligated to protect his rights

under the Treaty. Not so. Private parties cannot assert rights under the Treaty. It specifically

states: “The existence of restrictions in this Treaty shall not give rise to a right on the party of

any person to take any action in the United States to suppress or exclude any evidence or to

obtain other judicial relief in connection with requests under this Treaty, except with respect to

[various provisions that address search and seizure or a person’s right to refuse to testify]”

(Beeler Decl. Exh. C at 26). None of the exceptions applies here because there are no issues

regarding search and seizure or a potential witness’s refusal to testify.

Hilsenrath also attempts to invoke the Administrative Procedure Act in support of his

position. Hilsenrath’s reliance on the APA is misplaced. Only a “person suffering legal wrong

because of agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieve by agency action within the

meaning of a relevant statute” is entitled to judicial review. 5 U.S.C. 702. Hilsenrath has not

suffered a legal wrong or been adversely affected at the hands of an agency. OIA merely served

the Swiss order to Hilsenrath, which was required by the Treaty, and now Hilsenrath resists

OIA sending proof of service back to the Swiss government (even though service has already

been effected). No case law supports the proposition that service of this kind constitutes a legal

wrong review able under the APA.

Finally, Hilsenrath cannot use this lawsuit to assert that actions by the Swiss government

have violated his constitutional and international rights. As discussed in an order in an earlier

civil action between Hilsenrath and the Swiss Confederation, this Court concluded that a

United States federal court could not exercise jurisdiction over a foreign state and its

Case 3:07-cv-05100-WHA Document 18 Filed 01/03/08 Page 4 of 5
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

instrumentalities. See Hilsenrath, et al. v. The Swiss Confederation, et al., C 07-02782 WHA

(order dated Oct. 23, 2007).

CONCLUSION

Because this order finds that there is a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, the motion to

dismiss is hereby GRANTED. The Clerk shall close the file. Plaintiff Hilsenrath has now filed

repetitive meritless complaints. He is a sophisticated businessman, not a typical pro se litigant. 

He is now advised that if he continues to launch meritless litigation, he may be subject to

sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2008. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05100-WHA Document 18 Filed 01/03/08 Page 5 of 5