Leviathan

The website openrussia.org published material by Maria Bochkareva:

"Blocking of transport routes"

The transport collapse in the city of Tomsk was successfully prevented by our old friend, the head of OOOOPUiPMM UOOOPiVOIVTOiOMS UMVD O.A. Vodyankin.

It is inconvenient to conduct hidden video recording without good reason. But if we conclude that “adverse consequences (blocking transport routes) are possible,” then there seems to be a basis. And if you add in the report that “interference in the work of government bodies is predicted,” then in general you can do whatever your heart desires. And it doesn’t matter that in reality you see in front of you several fellow citizens shifting from foot to foot, who went out on single pickets in support of the city television company that was illegally closed the day before. And it doesn’t matter that there are holidays and the authorities are not working, but are resting in remote places. All this is of no significant importance. The main thing is to screw in multi-story office space. Language is generally a flexible matter. It can reveal and signify, or it can obscure and lead away from the essence.

Head of LLCOOPUiT.D. knew: those to whom he would pass the baton also mastered the office. Following Lieutenant Colonel Vodyankin, his deputy K.A. Gavrilenko, in the explanation attached to case No. 5-96/2015, will report that “when filming video, video No. 1 is clearly visible as Victoria Muchnik distributing picket participants to places of arrangement for participation in a public event” (spelling and punctuation in all quotes from reports and polls saved. - M.B.) In fact, this video only shows how people communicate on the sidewalk.

During the New Year holidays, the townspeople who went out with single pickets against the closure of TV2 managed to remember each other. Coming to the regional administration, they got acquainted and exchanged emotions about the lawless shutdown of the TV channel. The collusion of RTRS and Roskomnadzor, the demonstrative silence of local authorities and, finally, the blackout of television on New Year's Eve - all this became a slap in the face for the vast majority of citizens. Claiming that there were certain “organizers” behind those who went out on single pickets, it should be assumed that the largest rallies in the modern history of Tomsk were “rounded up”, that signature sheets addressed to the president with the names and telephone numbers of twenty thousand real people - waste paper.

To describe what happened in January in Tomsk, the Russian language has suitable words: self-respect, concern, mutual assistance. But those who wrote official slander used a different dictionary. In their arsenal, neutral and faceless phrases like: “clearly visible”, “catchy”, “does not raise doubts”, “attracts attention”. Centuries of Russian bureaucracy have produced speech formulas behind which anything can be hidden. The trick is that fantasies, when cast in strict formulations, are transformed into “facts” with which you can seriously go to court.

Lawyers are not allowed

On March 3, the Sovetsky District Court of the city of Tomsk held two court hearings on cases of uncoordinated public events. It is curious that for the urgent consideration of administrative cases against Victoria Muchnik and Ksenia Fadeeva, “heavy artillery” was put forward: Galina Butenko is the chairman of the court, Dmitry Okunev is her deputy for criminal cases. Dmitry Vladimirovich, appointed to this position by the President of the Russian Federation two months ago, has already appeared in the press in connection with the high-profile case of the ex-mayor of Tomsk Nikolai Nikolaychuk. Galina Butenko is known in connection with the trial of the Bhagavad Gita - this case glorified Tomsk not only in Russia, but throughout the world.

Hearings in the case of the picketers were scheduled spontaneously. These photographs “clearly show” that for G. Butenko and D. Okunev the meetings, which lasted almost nine hours, also came as a surprise.

There was no information about upcoming trials in the schedule on the official website; it was added retroactively a few days later.

Both defendants were informed about the upcoming trial by telephone two hours before it began, thereby violating paragraph 3 of Article 113 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, which states that court notices and summonses must be served on persons participating in the case in such a way that these persons have sufficient time to prepare for the case and appear in court on time.

The request to postpone the case due to insufficient time for preparation was rejected; 40 and 15 minutes were given respectively to familiarize themselves with the case of Victoria Muchnik and Ksenia Fadeeva. Deputy senior bailiff S. Shamov did not allow the defendants' lawyer into the courtroom until human rights activists intervened in the case. In modern judicial practice, there have already been cases when bailiffs, by order of a judge, did not allow defense witnesses into court, but refusal to admit a lawyer seems to be the know-how of the Soviet District Court. The film crew of the TV2 news agency, despite presenting journalistic IDs, was also not allowed in, and they sent for a copy of the media registration certificate. This is also something new.

One can understand the reluctance of district court officials to allow extra ears into the trial: it is unlikely that the cases of Fadeeva and Muchnik will be included in the textbooks “Civil Procedure” as examples of judicial impartiality and professionalism.

Police "Putintsev"

According to paragraph 2 of Article 26 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, evidence in a case of an administrative offense is “any factual data on the basis of which the presence or absence of an offense is established.” But with this there was a puncture. Because “factual data” exists only in the texts of reports of obviously forced employees of the security apparatus. And more specifically, to case No. 5-96 Muchnik V.S. The following were included: reports and explanations of police officers who served at a stationary police post called “Putintsev”, reports of the chief and deputy chief of OOOOPUIT.D., screenshots from social networks taken by anonymous employees without indicating the time of recording and the above-mentioned “video story No. 1”. The case also contains testimony from two civilians, but they deserve a separate story.

At first glance, the people in uniform seemed to have dug up something. Lieutenant Colonel Vodyankin’s report states: “Victoria Muchnik brought participants to the picket in her personal car, gave them propaganda materials and distributed the participants to their locations.” I didn’t make this up out of my head, really, Lieutenant Colonel. Such writing is a judicial matter.

But a few pages later, the file reveals an explanation from another employee, which sheds light on this event: “I arrived early and saw a Subaru car with state number 900 driven by Victoria Sergeevna Muchnik drive up to the Akademkniga store at <...> , who arrived together with Anna Muchnik, getting out of the car, they took posters “I AM FOR TV-2” and headed to the picket site.”

That is, from the point of view of common sense, the daughter came to the picket together with her mother, who had lost her job. But if you choose the right words, then the accused “brought participants to the picket and gave them propaganda materials.” Oh yes great and mighty!

“It seemed to me, or rather, I got the impression...”

And the icing on the cake. In addition to the evidence of people in uniform, the case contains a couple of very interesting documents. Two students, male and female, both visitors living in dormitories, also gave their testimony on February 27 - the very day when the case was opened about the offense. They begin in approximately the same way: “I, so-and-so, have been following the situation regarding the closure of the TV-2 television company since December 2014... As a person who lives in the city of Tomsk and watches Tomsk television, I was interested in this problem” and “I “As a citizen living in the city of Tomsk, I was concerned about this situation and I began to follow this issue.”

Further in the text of the explanation, student B. tells how he personally observed the organization of the picket: “01/05/2015, on business, I was in the area of ​​the Thousand Little Things store at approximately 13:30, I don’t remember the exact time. My attention was attracted by a group of people with posters in support of TV-2, which was located on the opposite side of the avenue... Among the participants in this group, I recognized Victoria Sergeevna Muchnik, who distributed the locations of the event participants, and her daughter Anna Muchnik, whom I know as how her father Viktor Moiseevich Muchnik taught at my University, and his daughter came to us for classes. I watched the group of people for some time and it seemed to me, or rather, I got the impression that it was Victoria Sergeevna Muchnik who was the organizer of the event, since she arranged people in picketing places and informed them about some general rules of participation. After the discussion, the participants of the event stood along Lenin Avenue at a distance of approximately 10-15 meters from each other with unfolded posters in support of TV-2 and began to picket. After looking at it for a while, I went about my business.”

Having passed the history teacher's exam, our student went to hand over the teacher's wife to the police. It is unknown how, why and under what circumstances the police contacted him, and what motivated him. It was not possible to reach the student at the number indicated in the protocol.

Perhaps student B. was reassured by the fact that the formulation “it seemed to me, or rather, the impression I got” was vague and non-binding. Maybe yes, maybe not. As the burgomaster played by Igor Kvasha said at the trial of his friend Munchausen: “Sometimes it seems to me that he is, and sometimes it seems that he is not. What do you want from me, I have poor eyesight, a completely unreliable memory ... "

But student M. doesn’t have to complain about old age’s ailments; her memory is phenomenal. Giving evidence to the police on February 27, she recalled from memory not only the names and surnames of people unfamiliar to her who posted on Facebook on January 3 and 8, but also recited by heart (!) the contents of these posts, down to the word: “01/08/2015 by user Victoria Muchnik posted a post on the social network “Facebook” in which the user reports that every day from 14.00 to 15.00 on Lenin Avenue near the Christmas tree next to “A Thousand Little Things” pickets are held in support of TV-2. “We have a chance to save the TV company if we stop looking at the table.” In my opinion, this post... calls for participation in pickets in support of TV-2.” What does it mean? That during the exam period, student M. in her dormitory memorized the texts of posts from social networks? Stanislavsky screams from the grave: “I don’t believe it!!!” Such students, preoccupied with the situation with TV2, memorizing posts and reproducing them from memory at the police station a month and a half later, do not exist. The image of the hero is written implausibly. What kind of reader is this epistolary work intended for? To the unassuming. Someone who will read it diagonally, who knows in advance how the book will end.

By the way, in the Muchnik case there are testimonies of real people with names and current phone numbers. For example, student I., who himself went to pickets and who sincerely laid out in an explanation everything that he thinks: “... I participated in the pickets alone, in order to express my civic position, no one organized me, I have nothing to do with the TV2 television company , I had never met other picketers before.”

But this testimony on paper and the testimony of witnesses in court by Galina Butenko were not accepted for consideration. Her Honor writes in the ruling: “the court is critical of the testimony of witnesses... the court regards the testimony... as an attempt... to achieve something favorable for V.S. Muchnik. outcome of the case."

Unauthorized wake

— Have you watched “Leviathan”? - During the break, defendant Muchnik asked Secretary Markova.

- I will not discuss personal issues with you.

Nothing personal. But seriously, neither Victoria Muchnik nor Ksenia Fadeeva themselves are of interest to law enforcement agencies. The picketers said that the police - the same ones who came to sign them up in January - nodded at the building of the “White House” and honestly admitted that the order came from there. The purpose of this whole action is a demonstrative flogging. No matter what. Don't even think about it. No gatherings. From now on, referring to the Tomsk precedent, you can, if you wish, equate any meeting to an unauthorized action. Sledding together or, for example, a wake.

It’s hard to believe, but steps in this direction have already been taken by the valiant Tomsk employees. On March 1, when tens of thousands of Muscovites carried flowers to the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge, a memorial event was held in Tomsk near the Stone of Sorrow. The same OOOP members, only this time not in uniform, did not hesitate at all, photographed and filmed those who brought flowers, candles and portraits of Boris Nemtsov to the stone.

One of the people in civilian clothes told his acquaintance among those commemorating: “Actually, this is also an unauthorized action. But today we will not write a report on you.”

They won't be today. And tomorrow it might come in handy. Cassettes on the shelf, photos on the computer.

“Why don’t you give notice of your pickets? Serve and come at least every day with posters,” said sympathetic police officers in January.

Some of the picketers tried it; it is clear what the answer was. Then Victoria Muchnik filed a notice to hold the action “in order to attract public attention to the study of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.” There was also a refusal. Such an action, according to the regional administration, may “provoke conflict situations.”

But Judge Butenko respects the main law of the country. In the text of the indictment, she even quoted the second article of the Constitution. According to Galina Evgenievna, the picketers deprive public authorities of “the real opportunity to fulfill the duty assigned to them by the Constitution of the Russian Federation, primarily its Article 2, to respect and protect the rights and freedoms of man and citizen...” That’s it. Do not interfere with the authorities in fulfilling the duties assigned by the Constitution. Get off the streets. We regret to inform you that on the third of March from 15.30 to 23.45 at the address Tomsk, st. Kartashova, 45, the funeral of justice took place.
By the way, unauthorized.