In the opposition

Process. Issue 19

November 17, 2009 Daily Journal

Another witness appeared in the court - a former bank employee Menatep Svetlana Borodina. Like other witnesses, she could not tell anything in essence of the prosecution. The rest of the time took a discussion of several petitions. Mikhail Khodorkovsky filed a motion to clarify a number of terms used by the charge. He perhaps allowed himself to joke slightly, however, in fact, he asked to interpret some key concepts, the use of which by prosecutors, according to him, does not correspond to the generally accepted. The prosecutor Ibrahimova answered the petition of Khodorkovsky in an exceptionally ruff of the tone and did not explain anything. Then the prosecutors filed a request for the extension of the defendant in custody until February 17, and lawyers, in turn, filed a motion to divert the prosecutors, which the court, as usual, was rejected.

The latest events in court, at the request of the “Daily Journal”, is commented by Platon Lebedeva , Elena Lipzer, the lawyer of Platon Lebedeva:

“After the prosecutors filed a petition for the extension of the detention of Khodorkovsky and Lebedev in custody, the defense was forced to submit to all the prosecutors, since this petition was again filed in improper form, it was not properly motivated, the provisions that were not relevant were contained there, our clients were accused of guilty even if the prosecution was charged. Our statement entailed a violent reaction from the prosecutors, including absolutely non -contact, shameless statements of prosecutor Ibrahimova. Unfortunately, the judge did not accept our arguments again. In addition, Khodorkovsky filed a request for clarifying the terms that the charge applies. Prosecutors use words and phrases that make no sense. What is, for example, “fictitious ownership”? The right of ownership cannot be fictitious, either it is, or it is not. At Ibragimova, Khodorkovsky also had a very sharp reaction to Khodorkovsky. Honestly, we did not understand what she answered, because not one of the questions raised in the petition was given an answer. We believe that the prosecutor has no right to behave like that. ”

Procedural orphoepic norms

Here you go. Only the last time we stupid the drizzling procedural boredom, when suddenly lightning flashed and thunder rumbled.

The prosecution was clearly regrouped and went forward by a friendly “pig”. Where did the former tambouring tongue -tied up? Where are the touchy whipping intonations? This time, only peppy stinging Ciceroons flown from the languages, and the shadows of the ancient speakers curled over the heads of the earned public.

In general, this is understandable. At some point, everyone together and passionately spoke of the most cherished for a Russian person-about the language. Russia is the country log-centric, and therefore everyone understands: if it is, for which to plant a person, then not for some obscure economic leprosy, but for incorrect stresses. Violation of the language norm - the crime is much more serious than the violation of the procedural norms. This is a hedgehog is clear.

If before that the observer felt more and more d'Artagnan who fell on the Latin debate, then this time he felt like a spectator of some kind of childhood of my youth with a didactic bias. Another “country of unacceptable lessons” or something in a similar kind, where the dual-sleeper falls asleep behind the textbook, as he was about to chop off his head for where the arranged commas. He wakes up temporarily enlightened and firmly decides to fix the deuce in Russian. Right tomorrow. And then - and a dream in the hand.

In the process of fierce accentological discussion, we learned, for example, on which syllable the stress is placed in the esoteric word “Montcom”. If, God forbid, fate will dispose in such a way that I or for some reason will have to use this terrible word, we will no longer be mistaken. And if we make a mistake, then we will have to blame only for ourselves - no one else.

No less interest was caused by cutting about “production”, “contracts” and “petitions”.

Speaking of a petition. Linguistic debate was so exciting, so pathetic and sharp that they almost drowned the main event of these days, namely the petition of the defendants to divert the prosecutors, as well as the judicial decision to reject this petition. And it’s right that they refused: it is necessary to strike correctly.

Leonid Semloths

Artist Alexander Kotlyarov