When Journalism Protects the State Instead of the Public
Editor’s note: The following witness account has been edited for clarity, readability and legal considerations.
The following intimidation tactics are allegedly used to silence members of the Swiss public who dare to challenge or expose misconduct involving Swiss law enforcement authorities and well-connected legal or financial actors.
Media Bias and Institutional Protection
Prejudiced journalists, such as the Tages-Anzeiger’s Quentin Schlapbach, function less as impartial reporters than as defenders of institutional and state interests.
They do so by constructing misleading narratives shaped by ideological and institutional bias, while deliberately omitting facts and contextual details they do not want the public to see. Swiss journalists are highly skilled at protecting the image of the Swiss state and will vehemently refuse to correct falsehoods and inaccuracies that serve institutional interests. To protect a damaged reputation, they will literally mislead the public by misrepresenting the true nature of legal proceedings.
Control of Public Narrative
By aggressively ignoring the public’s right to seek the truth — including by denying foreign lawyers and journalists honest answers and factual information — Zurich’s prosecution press office and PR department ([email protected]) will even go so far as to contradict its own Swiss legal principles regarding the ‘right of reply’ and the obligation to provide the public with balanced information.
In effect, the Swiss government and parts of the media can substitute truth and facts with institutional prejudice and misleading narratives, while attempting to shape what members of the public are permitted to say, publish and read.
* Stanley Brown is the pseudonym used by the Tages-Anzeiger for an individual who alleges that he became the victim of coordinated judicial abuse within entrenched networks inside the Swiss judicial and administrative apparatus. Zurich Observer also reported and commented on the matter (Stanley Brown: Zurich Prosecutors on a Witch Hunt).
On 5 November 2024, Tages-Anzeiger published the story of Stanley Brown — an ordeal that, since the days of the Stasi of the former German Democratic Republic, one would scarcely expect to be authored by public authorities — except, it seems, in Switzerland. This is no “American dream,” but a psychological ordeal scripted with a distinctly sadistic undertone: a script conceived by bureaucrats steeped in the narrow-minded inertia of the Swiss justice system.
Nothing sensational in the conventional sense: no physical torture. “Only” psychological terror struck Stanley Brown* with the force of a lightning bolt — deliberate, systematic, calculated. Designed to break a human being. In the GDR, such methods were explicitly termed Zersetzung — the systematic “decomposition” of an opponent. Psychological warfare of this kind is no less cruel than physical torture; it is suffering engineered with intent. These are the scripts of sadistic desk perpetrators — and they are not confined to history.
⸻
A Witch Hunt Too Complex to Tell?
Stanley Brown’s story is multilayered, nuanced — and unmistakably of public interest. Journalist Quentin Schlapbach acknowledges as much at the outset:
Indeed, a full account would overwhelm a single piece. By setting this expectation, the article implicitly narrows its ambition: only the most essential elements could be presented. Much — perhaps critically important — inevitably remains obscured. Some aspects might warrant stories of their own. Whether Tages-Anzeiger intends to publish a follow-up remains unclear.
Brown later described the article to Zurich Observer as one-sided — a criticism not without merit, given the selective presentation of facts. The more details are omitted or simplified, the more fragmented and blurred the narrative inevitably becomes. The paper’s own disclaimer about the limits of coverage underscores the inherent complexity of the case.
⸻
Public Interest — or Public Exposure?
Of particular significance is that the article was published without the protagonist’s consent.
The editorial board deemed the case to be of public interest — sufficiently so to prevail over numerous competing stories. Publication proceeded despite the withdrawal of consent; the story was considered too important to suppress.
But what kind of “public interest” is at stake?
Was the intention to expose the humiliation Brown had already endured at the hands of Zurich authorities — effectively subjecting him to public ridicule once again, this time before a wider audience? Brown was not merely ridiculed; he was, by his account, systematically broken by a witch hunt.
Or does the publication cater to a more troubling instinct: the voyeuristic appeal of misfortune? Is this, at least in part, sensationalism designed to attract readership through Schadenfreude?
In recent decades, the media’s interpretation of “public interest” has become increasingly aligned with circulation figures and market value. Appealing to base instincts has long been a hallmark of tabloid journalism — such as Switzerland’s Blick or Germany’s Bild.
The fact that Brown’s story appeared in Tages-Anzeiger, rather than in a tabloid, suggests a different intent. It is unlikely that the primary aim was to indulge voyeuristic curiosity.
⸻
Abuse of Power: A Watchdog Awakened
The deeper reason lies elsewhere: Brown’s case reflects patterns of abuse of power significant enough to trigger the newspaper’s role as a public watchdog.
Zurich Observer has also reviewed case files. While the full scope cannot be contained within a single article, one conclusion emerges with striking clarity: authorities in Zurich appear to have pursued a politically motivated campaign against a British citizen — potentially fuelled by resentment toward his activities and their consequences for segments of Switzerland’s financial elite.
Background context suggests that certain Swiss bankers faced — or might have faced — criminal proceedings abroad, following investigations linked to Brown’s actions. This dimension, notably, was not addressed in the Tages-Anzeiger article — not even hinted at, although it could have been framed without compromising anonymity.
The campaign against Brown reportedly employed psychological methods closely resembling those historically used by the Stasi for Zersetzung. Whether politically or personally motivated — or both — the parallels are difficult to ignore.
⸻
Accountability at the Top
If authorities in the Canton of Zurich are indeed resorting to witch hunts using Stasi methods against perceived adversaries, accountability must follow. Responsibility does not end at the operational level; it extends upward. As the saying goes, crap rolls downhill.
The official at the centre of the case is public prosecutor Daniela Senn (MLaw), formerly of the Zurich-Sihl Public Prosecutor’s Office** — a figure already familiar to Zurich Observer from previous reporting.
Her subsequent transfer in 2024 to a division handling organised crime introduces an additional dynamic: public criticism may now carry reputational risks by association. This may inadvertently raise the threshold for scrutiny. It is therefore important to note that the actions in question occurred prior to her reassignment.
⸻
* “Stanley Brown” is the pseudonym used by Tages-Anzeiger for the anonymous subject of the article “Questionable prosecution: Switzerland issues Europe-wide search for 73-year-old pensioner — abroad, observers shake their heads” (5 November 2024). His real identity is known to Zurich Observer.
** Daniela Senn transferred in 2024, shortly before publication of Schlapbach’s article, from the Zurich-Sihl Public Prosecutor’s Office to Public Prosecutor’s Office II (Organised Crime Division).
Media: The publication by the Swiss Tages-Anzeiger on November 5, 2024, was not the first to report on this case: the British Telegraph had already covered it in 2021. Over the course of 2024, Stanley Brown also contacted Beobachter and the Zurich Observer; according to him, the Beobachter editor abruptly terminated contact after several emails in August 2024, citing alleged “personal issues.” Let that sink in.
When Prosecutors Confuse Acquittal with Conviction
The creativity of Swiss lawyers isn’t just evident in their banking laws or attorney statutes, which have paved the way for international money laundering and tax fraud, and more, for decades. A recent farce from the Zurich Directorate of Justice shows how inventive they can be with Newspeak.
According to internal communications from the Zurich-Sihl Prosecutor’s Office, a “judgment has been rendered against A.B.” (name known to the editorial staff). Against?
In fact, in 2023, prosecutorDaniela Senn (MLaw) claimed in a legal notice that A.B. had attached a “ruling issued against” A.B. as evidence in a complaint. The curious thing about Senn’s wording is that the ruling A.B. had submitted with the complaint had fully acquitted A.B. of all charges. And not under the principle of in dubio pro reo (benefit of the doubt). The court had unequivocally accepted the justifications for the actions attributed to A.B. The Limattal/Albis public prosecutor’s office, which had brought charges against A.B., had chosen not to appeal the decision, nor did the private plaintiff pursue an appeal.
As of 2023, that case against A.B. dates back over ten years: the acquittal in favor of A.B. has been legally binding for more than ten years. The ruling became relevant again in 2023 when A.B. learned that someone had falsely claimed that A.B. had been convicted at that time.
Prosecutor Daniela Senn, who received A.B.’s subsequent complaint for defamation (slander) against the author of this false statement, responded with a decision not to pursue the case, which A.B. found completely incomprehensible. Senn primarily justified this decision by arguing that the defamation was time-barred: the document containing the obviously deliberate false claim that A.B. had been convicted in 2010 had apparently been written in 2017 (under Swiss law, defamation offenses expire four years after the date they are committed, in this case, 2021). According to Swiss law, the defamation would be considered time-barred, regardless of the fact that A.B. had only learned of this allegedly 2017-written defamatory document in 2023, after it had been proven to have been circulated in 2022.
Prosecutor Confuses Acquittal with Conviction
What A.B. understood even less: in her notice, the prosecutor misleadingly claimed that A.B. had submitted a “ruling issued against” A.B. as evidence. What Senn presumably meant was the acquittal in favor of A.B., although her wording implied a conviction. A.B. had submitted the ruling precisely because the proceedings had ended in A.B.’s favor, to demonstrate the falsehood of the 2017 written claim that A.B. had been convicted, thereby proving the defamation.
A.B. filed an appeal against the prosecutor’s decision not to open a criminal investigation for defamation, arguing that the offense had only been completed in 2022, when the defamatory document was circulated, and that the statute of limitations should begin from the day of its circulation in 2022. However, under Swiss law, defamation is considered a “state offense, not a continuing offense,” as the Zurich Higher Court informed A.B., thereby confirming the statute of limitations had expired in 2021.
OrwellianNEWSPEAK of the Zurich Justice Directorate
Regarding the misleading claim that A.B. had submitted a ruling issued “against” them, A.B. filed a separate supervisory complaint with the Office of the Attorney General. A.B. demanded an explanation as to why prosecutor Daniela Senn had made this mistake on the very point that was central to the defamation case. In her decision not to pursue the case, the prosecutor confused a conviction with an acquittal in a ruling that was meant to prove the falsehood of the claim that A.B. had been convicted. Was this carelessness? Intentional? Provocation?
The Zurich Directorate of Justice Being Trained in Newspeak.
Whether it was carelessness or intentional, the Zurich Office of the Attorney General could not say. It passed the responsibility for commenting on the matter to Daniela Senn’s superior, Chief Prosecutor Daniel Kloiber (lic. iur.). He took the easy way out: in his response to A.B.’s complaint, he offered the flimsy argument that the phrase “a ruling issued against” someone does not specify whether the ruling was an acquittal or a conviction. By definition, Kloiber’s statement amounts to Orwellian NEWSPEAK.
ChatGPT from OpenAI Clarifies – Zurich Authority Evades
A.B. analyzed the issue with the help of OpenAI’s GPT-4 language model. The conversation is publicly accessible (click link). The language model assessed Daniel Kloiber’s interpretation as “unusual”: stating that a “ruling issued against” a person does not imply a conviction was “misleading” and “problematic,” particularly in the legal context.
A.B. confronted the “Department of the Interior and Justice of the Canton of Zurich,” which supervises the Zurich prosecutors, with these findings. The response from Tassio Suter (MLaw), a representative of the Justice Department, was dismissive: “From our point of view, there is nothing more to add to the statement by Daniel Kloiber”. The assessment of Kloiber’s response by ChatGPT-4 as “unusual,” “misleading,” and “problematic,” or the confusion of an acquittal with a conviction, was entirely ignored. The representative of the Zurich Department of Justice sidestepped these questions with his curt reply.
Office of Special Investigations Responds
At least the Office of Special Investigations finally acknowledged in a written statement that prosecutor Daniela Senn’s wording was“unfortunate.” However, the Office of Special Investigations rejected the allegation of abuse of office that A.B. had filed against Daniela Senn, stating that the records clearly showed the ruling submitted by A.B. as evidence did indeed contain an acquittal in favor of A.B., as A.B. had claimed.
These records mean that Daniela Senn, at least, did not forge the written judgment to cover up her minor data falsification in the decision not to proceed with the case. That decision falsely claimed that a judgment had been issued ‘against’ A.B. As a result of Daniela Senn’s falsification, it creates the absurd implication that A.B. must be irrational or even insane as the falsification suggests that A.B. submitted a judgment against themselves as evidence to prove that the statement about their conviction was false and defamatory. This portrayal not only undermines A.B.’s credibility but paints a picture of someone acting irrationally, further damaging A.B.’s reputation by implying mental instability. This manipulation of the facts not only discredits A.B. but also amounts to a form of institutional bullying. By presenting A.B. as irrational or mentally unstable, Senn’s falsification distorts reality in a way that humiliates and undermines A.B., further amplifying the personal and reputational harm. However, following the clarification by the Office of Special Investigations, A.B. withdrew the penal complaint against Daniela Senn that had been filed in parallel with the supervisory complaint.
Comment:
If supervisory complaints to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Department of Justice of the Canton of Zurich, as in the present case, are deflected, it is a sign that democratic control of the authorities is not working. At least the Office of Special Investigations proved to be reliable. What remains is a discussion about the quality or negligence within Zurich’s prosecution offices. Also remaining is a debate about the arrogance of certain officials and prosecutors (Daniela Senn, Daniel Kloiber, Tassimo Suter). And let’s talk about institutional bullying, and bullies, too. Lastly, a debate remains on whether there is room for NEWSPEAK of the Justice Directorate in a democracy. In our opinion: absolutely NOT.
Update November 12, 2023: A.B. contacted the Ombudsman's Office of the Canton of Zurich by email on October 11, 2023. A.B. sent them the link to this article and asked about the experience with the Justice Department as described above: "How does the Ombudsman's Office of the Canton of Zurich view the procedure in the Canton of Zurich against errant public prosecutors when supervisory complaints apparently are no longer taken seriously and addressed?" On November 12, 2023, A. B. informed the Zurich Observer that they had not received a response from the Ombudsman's Office. The office is chaired by Mr Jurg Trachsel, a lawyer and member of the right-wing populist "Swiss People's Party" ("Schweizerische Volkspartei", SVP).
Update November 29, 2024: Prosecutor Daniela Senn transitioned in 2024 from the Zurich-Sihl Public Prosecutor's Office to the Public Prosecutor's Office II, Department for Organized Crime. Her bullying skills are certainly more purposefully employed there than in a general prosecutor's office. It should be considered that this reassignment might also be a strategic move by the Chief Public Prosecutor's Office for their own benefit: anyone who publicly criticizes Prosecutor Daniela Senn since her transfer would inevitably be drawn into the sphere of her new responsibilities regarding organized crime. This presents a somewhat disadvantageous background, naturally raising the threshold for publicly criticizing Daniela Senn (is the Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office perhaps anticipating further public complaints regarding Daniela Senn?). It is worth noting, that the Newspeak affair occurred in 2023, while Daniela Senn was still working for the general Zurich-Sihl Prosecutor's Office.
Political Responsibility for the Zurich Prosecutor’s NEWSPEAK Affair:
Since 2015, Ms Jacqueline Fehr of the Social Democratic Party is in charge of the Zurich Justice Directorate (image source: Canton of Zurich).
The Swiss “Beobachter” magazine reported in 2022 that since the introduction of the new Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure on January 1, 2011, about 90% of all criminal proceedings in Switzerland are now handled without a court trial through penalty orders. In 2023, the Beobachter awarded the prize for the “sloppiest penalty order of the year” to the Limmattal/Albis public prosecutor’s office.
The Beobachter reported on several problems resulting from the new Swiss Code of Criminal Procedure. At least 20% of the penalty orders are withdrawn after initial release. On March 7, 2022, the Beobachter headlined: “We are looking for the worst order of the year 2022 – join in!”
At a glance, it is clear in which direction criminal proceedings, which are now only conducted by public prosecutors without judicial assessment, must go.
Prosecutors: Much Ado About Nothing
Therefore, the outcry of the Beobachter, about 11 years after the introduction of the new Code of Criminal Procedure, is not surprising: The inherent problem of the new penalty system would have been foreseeable from the beginning.
In January 2023, the Beobachter named the “sloppiest penalty order” of the year 2022. A jury of three experts assembled by the Beobachter concluded that the Limmattal/Albis public prosecutor’s office of the canton of Zurich would be worthy of this negative award, due to a case that the Beobachter reported on April 1, 2022: “Two days in prison because the public prosecutor’s office was sloppy.”
The idea for this prize is based on the story of a man who spent 75 days in Swiss custody without knowing why: “The great power of the prosecutors.”
However, the Beobachter failed in their attempt to personally present the award to the head of the Limmattal/Albis public prosecutor’s office. In the report of January 26, 2023, “The Beobachter crowns the sloppiest penalty order of the year,” Lukas Lippert noted: “The reception was as frosty as the day. That prosecutor’s office refused on January 26 to accept the negative award for the worst order of the year. Beobachter editor-in-chief Dominique Strebel could not personally hand over the trophy.”
It is regrettable that the Beobachter is now almost the only editorial medium in Switzerland that still critically scrutinizes the police and judiciary. With the possible exception of the state-run Swiss television, all others conveniently look away. The mainstream journalists of the major publishing houses pick the raisins out of the cake of world events. They diligently leave the journalistic bone work in the uncomfortable environment of abuses of power by the state, the police, and the judiciary to whoever. As if there had never been human rights violations in Switzerland! In the Swiss Canton of Zurich, at least the Justice Commission of the Zurich Cantonal Council is now investigating the issue of abusive penalty orders. The question ist, whether that is enough.
