Our guests & laureats:
-
Mr. Paul Mazursky
- Tarantino`s INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS:
was awarded by Special David Camera`09
- Our 6th WJFF`08 was dedicated to late Master Gustaw Holoubek (85)
- Our Warsaw Jewish Film Festival did support financially CUNIO CENTER for PEACE named of Ahmed Khatib in Jenin, Palestine 2008
- Wajda`s KATYÑ:
Festival`07 openning - Oscar`08 Nomination
- Israeli BEAUFORT:
Festival`07 selection - Oscar`08 Nomination
- West Bank Story:
Oscar`07 & David Camera`06
- Janusz Kaminski & David Camera 06 for MUNICH
- Grace Guggenheim
Jury Chairwomen 06
- Peace negotiations at WJFF 06:Israel & Palestine
- Agnes Varda & David Camera 05, Paris 06
- Amos Gitai, 2005
- Laios Koltai & John Daly, Jury 05
- Lina & Slava Chaplin 05
- Daniela Weber from Berlinale 05
- Education 05 for college students from Warsaw
- Irvin Kershner, Jury 04
- Openning Ceremony 03
- Janusz Zaorski, M.Frackowiak 03
- Prof. Shewach Weiss & T. Friedman
- Gen. S³awomir Petelicki 03
- S.p.Prof.Henryk Kluba, Jury Chairman 03
& the Honorary David Camera Award`10
Announcements
- 2011, June the 1st
Daniel Strehlau sent appeal to the Assembly Court in Warsaw, PL - On 2 April 2011, after a few years of court proceedings which started in 2006, the court finally issued a non-binding judgment in the case brought by Daniel Strehlau against Stowarzyszenie Zydowskie Motywy [Jewish Motifs Association], Studio Kontakt and Miroslaw Chojecki.
Despite numerous pieces of firm evidence (correspondence, experts’ opinions, the claimant being subjected to polygraph tests and hundreds of pages of documents) gathered in the case and despite numerous respectable witnesses (two from Israel: Alex Claude and Michael Tapuach; Daniela Weber from Berlinale; Konstanty Gebert from Warsaw; Grace Guggenheim from the USA; Jacek Sylwin, being an expert of the sponsor bank, which refused to cooperate with the claimant’s Festival because of the doubts it had having read the article in POLITYKA weekly; Dorota Schwartzman, being the author of the article SZMONCES NA DACHU [SHMONTZES ON THE ROOF] in POLITYKA (No. 45 (2477) of 6 November 2004), who confirmed that she wrote what she heard from defendant Miroslaw Chojecki; a representative of the Office for Culture of the City of Warsaw, who confirmed that the City started to subsidise, from public funds, only one Jewish Festival that is the younger Festival of the defendants (subsidy of PLN 1.2 million, whereas the claimant’s Festival, being older and the first, received a subsidy of only PLN 100 thousand) who all confirmed the dishonesty of the defendants, the court dismissed the charges of:
1. infringement of the claimant’s personal interests – that means that it is allowed in Poland to tell an untruth about someone, write it in the oldest opinion-forming weekly, POLITYKA, and ruin someone’s reputation and at the same time a public cultural event. The event is built on its reputation, which must be unblemished as it is taken into consideration by the sponsors who decide about financial support. The latter decides about the existence of the Festival which is assessed by the viewers not knowing the behind-the-scenes (large budget = good festival, small budget = poor festival and no interest in the festival in the future). One of the arguments of the court was that the article was long and the part concerning claimant Daniel Strehlau, in which defendant Miroslaw Chojecki told untruth, was short.
2. infringement of copyright, as both festivals are different and the viewers and sponsors cannot be confused – why then do the film authors make mistakes and send the films to the defendants’ festival although they want to send it to the claimant’s festival? Why do the authors of films awarded at the defendants’ festival inform the public about the awards using the name of the claimant’s festival, at which in fact they were awarded nothing? Why did the defendants create exactly the same structure of the festival as was created by the claimant before? If they decided to create a festival having the same theme, being Jewish, in the same city, why did they not invent something else? Not all festivals in the world take the form of a competition with jury, categories, golden, silver, bronze and honourable awards, special awards and honourable mentions (an example is the Toronto International Film Festival which does not have those characteristics). While organising their festival, the defendants copied those characteristics and drew on the claimant’s festival which already existed. Initially, they even used a name which was the same as the name of the claimant’s festival, which confused the authors and viewers. Owing to that confusion, they built their event at the expense of the other event, i.e. the first, pioneering, Jewish film festival, not only in Warsaw but also in the whole of Poland and in that region of Europe, which was a unique and pioneering success: WEST BANK STORY, the film which was given the 2006 David Camera award, was an Oscar winner in the same category three months later. In 2007, two films presented at the claimant’s festival, Wajda`s KATYN and Israeli BEAUFORT, were Oscar nominees three months later.
3. unfair competition, as the court decided that there was no infringement in the two above mentioned issues.
Therefore, the future of the first, pioneering and trail-blazing Warsaw Jewish Film Festival hangs in the balance. Claimant Daniel Strehlau did not know the defendants and in particular defendant Miroslaw Chojecki, who maintained that he came up with his idea before claimant Daniel Strehlau. Claimant Daniel Strehlau had never even heard about the defendant and his idea or ideas. The claimant did not establish any cooperation with defendant Ewa Szprynger, whom he met at the Festival in Lublin in April 2003 as a film and TV programme producer. The defendant made a TV programme about the first, 2003, edition of the claimant’s Festival and at the same time analysed it thoroughly. Afterwards she became the president of defendant Miroslaw Chojecki’s association, Stowarzyszenie Zydowskie Motywy.
Defendant Miroslaw Chojecki pestered the claimant to meet him about two and a half months before the first edition of the claimant’s festival in 2003. Then, in 2004, a month before the second edition of the claimant’s festival, the defendant publicly told untruth in POLITYKA weekly and by doing so, he brought about the collapse of the claimant’s Festival, his personal interests as well as his projects, contacts, friends at home and abroad and even family. Thus the claimant many a time experienced this parasitic behaviour of the defendant, with whom the claimant had never had anything to do, who the claimant had never known or heard about and who he does not want to have anything to do with in the future.
Asked why he did not carry out his idea earlier, if he had come up with it before, the defendant answered that he did not receive money from Cinematography Committee, a public institution, in 2001. Claimant Daniel Strehlau organised his first Festival in November 2003 under free-market principles and thanks to attractive offers made to sponsors, being companies and private institutions which liked the complete project and wanted to be associated with the event.
In July 2003, the claimant created webpages for the festival (www.wjff.pl) including rules and regulations, application forms, information about categories and awards (golden, silver and bronze award and honourable mentions etc.), introductory word and mission. In July 2003, the claimant sent information about his festival to eight thousand e-mail addresses of various institutions and VIPs from all over the world. The website administrator gave access to the statistics: there were several thousand visits to the Festival website in more than a dozen countries within 48 hours in July 2003. If defendant Miroslaw Chojecki had the idea earlier, why did he not create a website for his festival with information about his current or future plans? How was it possible to enter films for the defendant’s competition in 2001? It was not possible as the festival simply did not exist in any form, except for the form of an idea and thought, and the public knew nothing about it. It was possible to enter films for the festival in April 2004 after the defendants organised it while copying the structure of the other, already existing, Warsaw festival. There have been many people with various ideas which have not been carried out, there are many people with an idea, say, for a love song, but only one person having such idea is courageous enough to carry it out.
The defendants did not make that effort, which is why the claimant concluded they were people of no talent and creativity. Their only effort consisted in analysing the website of the claimant’s Festival and the activity of the claimant. They did that in order to build an identical festival and to block the claimant’s activities in an unfair and planned manner by creating an atmosphere of dishonesty and doubts around the claimant. That in turn affected the decisions of the sponsors, who did not get involved in any festival, and of the decision makers from public institutions, who either stopped subsidising the claimant’s Festival or granted such low subsidies that it was impossible to develop it.
In 2003, the sponsors were interested in further cooperation with the claimant after a spectacular success of his first Festival in 2003.
In this situation, claimant Daniel Strehlau feels like a “Polish Dreyfus” because even the justice bodies do not see the evident harm and dishonesty, which is evident to various independent persons who are unrelated to the claimant and who simply analysed the matter and read a few papers submitted in the case, which apparently were not read by the Court.
As there are no subsidies and few sponsors because of the above mentioned reasons, it remains to be seen whether the Eastern Europe’s first Jewish Film Festival will be organised in the future. The claimant no longer has such heroic power and his own resources so as to carry out the project as he did last years.
Daniel Strehlau
- 2011, February the 28th.
The judge should informed that the veridct will be announced on March the 2nd, 2011. - 2011, February the 16th.
The judge heared and questioned two sides: complainant (Daniel Strehlau) and defendants. The judge should announce the veridct on February the 28th, 2011. - 2010, October the 28th
- at this day witness of defendant arrived Mr. Andrzej Wajda. The judge announced the next term of trial, which should take a place on February the 16th, 2011. - 2010, July the 8th
took place the the trial. the judge announced the next term of trial, which should take a place on July the 8th. Three other witnesses was called: two of defendants and one of complainant (Daniel Strehlau), but they arrived only two of them: one of the defendants and one of compainant. - 2010, April the 21st
- the trial took place on April the 21st, 2010. Only one witness arrived of defendants, Krzysztof Zanussi. The other witness, Andrzej Wajda should arrive on July the 8th. - 2010, January the 14th
- the judge did decline the following term of trial and didn`t announce the new one yet. - 2009, October the 1st
- 2009, May the 21st
- 2009, March the 31st
- 2009, February the 19th
- 2008, November the 25th
- 2008, September the 11th
- 2008, June the 25th
- 2008, January 21st
- The case was protracted due to some formal reasons from the day Chojecki was summoned by the Court to the day of the settlement in December 2006, which was not accepted by Chojecki. Among other facts, those reasons were: Chojecki’s legal address of residence was unavailable (it took about three months to receive the address from the Ministry of Internal Affairs and Administration); Chojecki did not take a number of notifications and decrees of the Court, each of which had to become final and binding within the period of about 2 – 4 weeks; the Court sent the documents to an inappropriate division and so it had to send them to the appropriate one. Due to the abovementioned, that period was extended until the beginning of April 2008. The date of the hearing is to be set in that time. The case against respondent Chojecki serves to defend the good and honest name of Daniel Strehlau and his Festival. As it can be seen from the above, that does not suit Chojecki, who only benefits from the confusion and is afraid of the confrontation, by which he confirms that to Strehlau he is a blatant liar. If he were not, he would sue Strehlau, as the petitioner sued respondent Chojecki in order to fight for his rights. The case is important to Strehlau insofar as it rectifies the injustice he suffered.
- 2007, April the 28th
- December the 22nd, 2006
- Unfortunately, on his Festival web Mr. Chojecki is presenting the copyright with the date of 2002 - 2007, which is false, as his Festival was established in 2004 and his Association in 2005.
- We would like to inform you that we have never cooperated and do not cooperate with Mr. Chojecki.
- We are waiting for the date of the trial in the Court in Warsaw /09.06.2007/.
- Most films described in the article published in the biggest Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza about Mr. Chojecki`s festival in May 2007 had their Polish premieres during our 4th edition of WJFF in 2006, half a year earlier. Among them were WEST BANK STORY awarded Oscar`07 and David Camera`06. Unfortunately, Gazeta Wyborcza didn`t write about it in said article or in any article about our Festival in November 2006...
- 2005, January
- 2004, November the 6th
- 2003, November the 4th
- 2003, July the 26th
Breaking News: Festival's Issues:
Due to the fact of great interest in the Chojecki case - organizer of a festival which emerged in 2004, half a year after ours,
and which has been a copy of our WJFF since 2003 - we continue to inform you:
Due the formal reason the trial will be continue for next several weeks.
We hope for the verdict, which will present the dishonest of Mr. Miroslaw Chojecki and other organizers of so called festival Jewish Motifs and doesn’t allow the dishonest organizers to realize their Festival, which is organizing against the law.
Important doucements:
| 2010.Feb: New Letter to the court from D. Strehlau |
2009.Oct: 2nd Letter to the court from D. Strehlau |
2009.May: Report on Polygraphic Examination of D.Strehlau |
2011, March the 2nd - verdict.
Why does Daniel Strehlau, director of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival, feel like a “Polish Alfred Dreyfus”?
The next part of the trial will take place in the Civil Court of Warsaw City. Three witnesses would be heard by Judge. Two of them, Mr. Andrzej Wajda and Mr. Krzysztof Zanussi for the side of defendant will be demand again, because they didn`t arrive last time.
It is going about the value of ethic, morality, justice, honesty, good opinion.
The case is to prove the dishonesty of the organizers and not legal status of the so called festival JEWISH MOTIFS, copy of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival established in 2003 by idea & project of Daniel Strehlau, which was damaged by unfair competition.
Daniel Strehlau is represented by Pociej, Dubois and Partners, Lawyer`s Office. Soon more!
The next part of the trial took place in the Civil Court of Warsaw City. Only one witness of three expected was heard by Judge - one of them from Germany - Mrs. Daniela Weber from BERLINALE FF. Mrs Weber gave the testimony for the side of Daniel Strehlau. Two witnesses from Poland Mr. Andrzej Wajda and Mr. Krzysztof Zanussi, who will testify for the side of Miroslaw Chojecki and his Festival, didn`t arrive the court.
It is going about the value of ethic, morality, justice, honesty, good opinion.
The case is to prove the dishonesty of the organizers and not legal status of the so called festival JEWISH MOTIFS, copy of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival established in 2003 by idea & project of Daniel Strehlau, which was damaged by unfair competition.
Daniel Strehlau is represented by his lawyer Mrs. Zofia Gajewska from Pociej, Dubois and Partners, Lawyer`s Office.
The next part of the trial took place in the Civil Court in Warsaw. Four witnesses were heard by Judge: Mr. Michael Tapuach - film producer from Israel, Mr. Jacek Sylwin - producer and advisor / decider of Millennium Bank according sponsorships of the Bank (Poland), Ms. Ewa Szwarcman - journalist and the author of the article, which presented the Miroslaw Chojecki`s opinion, describing Daniel Strehlau as a idea`s thief - she did confirm that she wrote what she did hear from M. Chojecki (Poland), Ms. Ewa Szprynger - President of M. Chojecki`s JEWISH MOTIFS ASSOTIATION, who did say that Chojecki is no organizer (?!) of the so called JEWISH MOTIFS Festival (Poland).
The case is to prove the dishonesty of the organizers and not legal status of the so called festival JEWISH MOTIFS, copy of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival established in 2003 by idea & project of Daniel Strehlau, which was damaged by unfair competition.
Daniel Strehlau is represented by his lawyer Ms. Barbara Kardynia from Pociej, Dubois and Partners, Lawyer`s Office. Soon more!
The next part of the trial took place in the Civil Court in Warsaw. Ms. Grace Guggenheim (USA) was rehearsal by the judge in Warsaw, Poland. The judge establish new term for the next trial, May the 21st , 2009.
The next part of the trial took place in the Civil Court in Warsaw. Two witnesses were interrogated by the Judge: Mr. Kostek Gebert (Poland) and Mr. Alex Claude (Israel). Daniel Strehlau was represented by his lawyer Ms. Barbara Kardynia. The judge took decision to continue the trial on March , 2009.
The second part of the trial took place in the Civil Court in Warsaw. Daniel Strehlau was represented by his lawyer Ms. Barbara Kardynia. The judge took decision to continue the trial on February the 19th, 2009 when Daniel Strehlau will arrive especially from NYC for the trial in Warsaw. We hope for the verdict, which will present the dishonest of Mr. Miroslaw Chojecki organizer of so called festival Jewish Motifs. Soon more!
The first part of the trial took place finally. By decision of the judge the trial will be continued on November the 25th. During this part the audition of both sides took place only, which took about 2 hours only.
 |
| 
|
 |
| 
|
The Civil Court of Warsaw City did announce finally the day (September the 11th, 08) of the case against scandal person Miroslaw Chojecki, creator of so called Jewish Motifs festival - the copy of our Festival.
| On 25 January 2008 the Court issued a decree concerning the correction of a mistake it had made and so the case was transferred to the appropriate division of the Court. | 
| 
|
On 22nd of December, 2006, as petitioned by Daniel Strehlau’s lawyer, the Commercial Court in Warsaw called on Mr. M. Chojecki to make a settlement with Mr. Strehlau. Unfortunately, despite the proposal to reach a settlement, Mr. Chojecki refused to cooperate. As Mr. Chojecki did not appreciate the fact that Mr. Strehlau had hold out his hand to him, a decision was made to conduct further legal proceedings, i.e. to file a lawsuit to the Commercial Court against Mr. Chojecki and his dishonesty.
In the Jewish State Theater in Warsaw took place the Opening Ceremony of the 1st edition of Warsaw Jewish Film Festival by idea of Daniel Strehlau.
The first Festival web by Daniel Strehlau was activated in the www.
