LEVITON LAW GROUP, A P.C. Stuart L. Leviton, Esq. TELEPHONE (213) 402-4576 FACSIMILE (213) 559-0572 sleviton@levitonlawgroup.com Los Angeles Office Palm Springs Office 515 S. Figueroa St. 777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Suite 1110 Suite 200-136 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Dear Mr. Gochin: November 27, 2018 I have been a civil attorney for 25 years. After completing my undergraduate studies at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, I graduated with honors from the University of Texas at Austin School of Law, attaining the degree of Doctor of Jurisprudence. In the United States, I am a member in good standing of the Bars of the United States Supreme Court and the California Supreme Court, among others. You have requested my professional opinion as to the meaning of the letter from the Committee of the Judiciary dated January 13, 1975, addressed to Mr. Gecys, signed by Joshua Eilberg (the 1975 Letter ). In short, the 1975 Letter has little, if any, meaning today, and should not be relied upon to draw any conclusions regarding Messers. Brazaitis and Slepetys. The 1975 Letter may well have been a true recitation of a fact in 1975, namely that the subject Committee did not find sufficient evidence from which to draw adverse conclusions regarding these men. Critically, a lack of evidence does not mean, however, that someone is not guilty of wrongdoing; rather, a lack of evidence simply means that as of a certain date, wrongdoing cannot be proven by the applicable standard of proof. If, subsequent to the issuance of the 1975 Letter, evidence of wrongdoing has been discovered, such evidence must be evaluated and considered and given appropriate weight. It would be and is improper to ignore relevant evidence that may have been discovered after the issuance of the 1975 Letter. Moreover, regardless of whether subsequently discovered evidence could be used in a court of law, your fundamental concern is about setting the record straight and ensuring, to the extent possible, that truth prevails. To the extent there is subsequently discovered evidence of wrongdoing, it must be considered, and the 1975 Letter in no way changes this outcome. Anyone who is relying on the 1975 Letter to conclude that these men did not engage in wrongdoing is misusing the 1975 Letter. As noted above, at most, the 1975 Letter documents a lack of evidence in 1975, and says nothing about any evidence that may have been discovered over the next 40+ years. Sincerely, LEVITON LAW GROUP, A P.C. Stuart L. Leviton
Rudzinskas and partners --------------------------------- to: Center for the Study of the Genocide and Resistance of Residents of Lithuania Didžioji street no. 17/1, Vilnius cc: Office of Parliamentary Ombudsman Gedimino propsect no. 56, 01110 Vilnius Cover letter Vilnius December 12, 2018 The attorney Rokas Rudzinskas and Grant Arthur Gochin, personal identification code 36311021360, resident at the address 10900 Winnetka Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, USA (hereinafter Client), signed an agreement on legal services and representation on August 11, 2016, whose basis was that the attorney was instructed to represent the Client at state and other institutions, agencies and organizations, to present requests, to acquire necessary documents and to maintain legal contact with third parties. Acting as the authorized representative, I present the Client's request addressed to the Center for the Study of the Genocide and Resistance of Residents of Lithuania. The agreement on legal representation was included in earlier correspondence from the Client. The Client's address for correspondence in the Republic of Lithuania is Office of Attorney Rokas Rudzinskas, A. Mickevičiaus street no. 14-2, Vilnius. APPENDED: 1. Client's letter Sincerely, Rokas Rudzinskas, attorney [signed] [next page] [Gochin address] [attorney's address for correspondence] to: Center for the Study of the Genocide and Resistance of Residents of Lithuania Didžioji street no. 17/1, Vilnius Office of Parliamentary Ombudsman Gedimino propsect no. 56, 01110 Vilnius
I am writing regarding letter no. 55R-21 of February 26, 2018, and letter no. 14R-82 of October 11, 2018, from the Center for the Study of the Genocide and Resistance of Residents of Lithuania. In the second point of letter no. 14R-82 of October 11, 2018, you indicated that an investigation was undertaken regarding Juozas Brazaitis and that the investigation was halted after failing to find sufficient evidence of guilt, and that a letter from Joshua Eilberg, a member of the Judicial Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States Congress, indirectly apologized for the unfounded allegations. It isn't possible to agree with this explanation by the Center because the investigation was stopped for a different reason, because of the death of Juozas Ambrazevičius-Brazaitis on October 28, 1974. It was only following his death that the vice president of the Lithuanian Community, Inc., was informed in this letter about the halting of the investigation (but not even the dropping of the allegations against him). Against the background of these circumstances, the argument by the Center in the letter of February 26, 2018, that his "activity was exhaustively investigated by the US Congress and the US Immigration and Naturalization Service in 1974, and Juozas Ambrazevičius-Brazaitis was completely exonerated," is clearly untrue and constitutes an explanation of the facts attempting to advocate for the person of Juozas Ambrazevičius-Brazaitis. I would like to inform you that I do not know of this letter the Center indicates from the Immigration and Naturalization Service to the Congress which contains an explanation of the details of an investigation into his activities, and so it is difficult to comment on the contents without actually seeing the document. In any case, the letter mentioned by the Center (if it actually exists) does not change the fact the investigation was only halted following Brazaitis's death. Regarding the Center's use of the term "totally exonerated": I hereby present the conclusions of four US attorneys which indicate the US Immigration and Naturalization Service is an organ of the executive branch and doesn't engage in any special investigations. All of the service's investigations and decisions have to be confirmed by an immigration judge. The investigation was halted according to procedure following the death of the subject, and the case wasn't tried in court, so the use of the term "totally exonerated" is incorrect. The conclusions by these attorneys and the 1975 letter by congressman Eldberg truly do not show that Brazaitis was "totally exonerated." Neither Stalin nor his followers were convicted of their crimes, but does that mean they did not commit crimes against humanity according to Lithuanian law at the time? I remind you that the Center's letter no. 55R-21 of February 26, 2018, was a response to my query and the Office of Parliamentary Ombudsman's directive to provide an answer regarding a finding of genocide in official historical findings based on the requirements of law (letter no. 4D- 2017/1-1558/3D-317 of February 2, 2018). Although the Center in their reply of February 26, 2018, indicated they define the crime of the Holocaust and consider its perpetrators in line with the positions of acts of international law, it is apparent in that same letter and in the letter of October 11, 2018, that this is completely untrue. Examination of the contents of the responses leads to the conclusion the methodology for the legal determination of the crime of genocide that the Center provides in its letters is flawed because the facts are suppressed, and the historical circumstances are presented in such a light as to preserve "the good reputation" of
Škirpa and Brazaitis. It is also worth noting that the arguments in the response are based on the letter from the member of Congress, i.e., on a document received from the plaintiff in 2018, as well as documents "accessible by the Center." In both letters the Center paints a favorable picture of the characters of Brazaitis and Škirpa. Elaborating arguments the Congress had indirectly apologized to Brazaitis's family members (which was not said directly), the Center goes on to portray the facts tendentiously, in a way favorable to these two people. I would like to take this opportunity to inform the Center that I managed to obtain a letter signed by three members of the US Congress dated September 25, and sent to the then-prime minister of Lithuania. The letter expresses the Congress's concern regarding the Lithuanian state's decision to rebury the mortal remains of Brazaitis and shares the anger and pain felt by relatives of Holocaust victims. It describes Lithuania's decision to rebury Brazaitis as "an absolute outrage" which tramples upon efforts to combat anti-semitism and name Holocaust perpetrators, in light of the anti-semitic calls by the LAF and the rapid mass murder of Jews under the leadership [Brazaitis's] of the Lithuanian Provisional Government. In light of this letter, in assessing the Center's arguments about "complete exoneration" and "Congress's apology", it is clear the Center is, actively and volitionally, promulgating a lie and thus violating one of the most important tasks defined in the Center's regulations, namely, the restoration of historical justice. The Center in publicly stating unfounded claims is acting either very recklessly, or intentionally, thus violating the principles of objectivity and comprehensiveness in the law on public administration. These actions do harm to the state and its people, and this is being committed by a state institution which is defined in its founding statutes as the institution which sets methodologies for historical research on the occupational period during the 20th century. Regarding the claim that "the Center in investigating Škirpa's actions did not find reliable information" about his participation in the Holocaust, I send for the Center's attention the US Federal Bureau of Investigation's file on Škirpa. This case-file says that colonel Kazys Grinius provided testimony to the US in 1943 (page 17) which indicated he was an associate of the Nazi ministers Alfred Rosenberg and von Ribbentrop. I hope these reliable documents will help the Center better carry out the duties assigned it. "The military intelligence division of the War Department in 1943 advised that Colonel Grinius... was also connected with the Lithuanian Citizens in Germany League, a pro-nazi organization which was headed by Casys Skirpa, who moved into Lithuania with invading forces and set up a 'Quisling' government. "He further stated that Skirpa was actively attempting to promote pro-german sentiments among Lithuanian organizations and was attempting to build a German-controlled underground in Lithuania.... It was further related that Skirpa was associated with Alfred Rosenberg and von RIbbentrop, the former German ministers, in order to prepare for Germany's drive in Lithuania." We hope the parliamentary ombudsman will take charge of these actions and stop these and similar violations in the future. Appended: 1. FBI case-file no. 40-HQ-82592 2. Congressional letter to Lithuanian prime minister, September 25, 2012
3. Finding by attorney Mark Bledstein, December 6, 2018 4. Finding by attorney Gary Labin, December 5, 2018 5. Finding by attorney Bryan Miller, November 29, 2018 6. Finding by attorney Stuart Leviton, esq., November 27, 2018 Sincerely, Grant Arthur Gochin December 12, 2018 [signed]