God's spam. Omerta

Part 1: God's spam. How it's done

Omerta is one of the few, but strictly observed, operating principles of what has grown over the years of “sovereign tandemocracy” in place of the country’s judicial branch of government. Which, however, is quite natural for a system based on mutual responsibility and caste isolation.

However, this is where the similarity with the famous Italian “Cosa Nostra” ends. After all, excuse me, “Cosa Nostra” is adequate, but what we are dealing with, to put it mildly, is not quite.

It just so happened that virtually the entire chain of “mutual responsibility” provided me with a wonderful opportunity to clearly demonstrate what I am talking about. Using the example of the same “masterpiece” of legal thought - the sentence pronounced against me by federal judge Marina Lvovna Syrova.

After unsuccessfully appealing the verdict in the cassation and supervisory instances of the Moscow City Court (which in itself is worthy of a separate story), I, in accordance with the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation, appealed the verdict to the chairman of the Moscow City Court, Olga Egorova. It’s not that I have any illusions about this appeal - it’s just that this is a necessary authority, without an answer from which an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is impossible.

I received a response from federal judge O. Egorova. As expected - refusal. I haven’t been surprised by anything for a long time, but the cynicism and obvious illiteracy of the answer offended me. Among other things, Judge Egorova even managed to change the plot of the charge - the wording of the refusal directly and obviously contradicts the plot of the verdict. Thus, the verdict states that I “involved for criminal purposes” citizens S. and M. only on the first episode of the charge (for the first apartment), and Judge Egorova, with a clear eye, asserts that “the circumstances and criminal purposes” of my involvement of these people “ “In both episodes, the charges were comprehensively studied and proven during court hearings, which was reflected in the verdict.” The verdict, I emphasize again, is simply beyond the bounds. But O. Egorova’s statement clearly contradicts even him.

In general, the chairman of the Moscow City Court, apparently, did not even take the verdict into her hands. At the same time, all my indications are of an obvious violation of the principle of prejudice, the sacred right of Private Property (Article 35 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation), the illegal disclosure of the testimony of S. and M. in court, etc. refusals are simply ignored.

In response to such blatant rudeness (sorry, but that’s what it’s called), I sent Judge Egorova a petition asking her to still familiarize herself with the verdict and, within the framework of her powers, restore the norms of law. Or at least eliminate my factual error (let’s call it that) regarding the role of S. and M. in the formulation of the charge brought against me and the sentence passed.

A petition is a different procedural document, not a supervisory complaint. And its consideration is regulated by other norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation. Imagine my surprise when I received my petition back without consideration with an explanatory note from a judge of the Moscow City Court named Rolgeiser dated June 18, 2012. I expected anything. Even a refusal with a wording like “the issues in your application have already been the subject of supervisory consideration.” But the answer (refusal) turned out to be even more frank and cynical - Judge Rolgeiser returned my “supervisory complaint” to me with the wording that “repeated consideration of supervisory complaints by the same court is not allowed.”

Such actions are nothing more than a blatant and blatant obstruction of my access to justice. This is what I indicated in the cassation appeal to the judicial panel for criminal cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (Appendix No. 1). I received the answer just the other day. The cassation appeal was returned to me from the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation with the wording “we are returning your supervisory appeal against the verdict to you... without consideration... it will be accepted for consideration after you attach the documents necessary in accordance with the norms of the Code of Criminal Procedure on supervisory appeals...”

In my opinion, comments are unnecessary. But if this was, in principle, expected from Mosgor, the Supreme Court still managed to surprise me. One of the resolutions of the Plenum of the RF Armed Forces states that “the norms of the Criminal Code and the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Russian Federation regulating the procedure for legal proceedings should not be interpreted by courts of general jurisdiction, but are subject to unconditional and mandatory execution.” A wonderful resolution. Competent, correct, corresponding to the provisions of Article 120 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation: “judges are independent and subject only to the Constitution of the Russian Federation and federal law.” Only in practice it turns out that the courts, including the Supreme Court, do not care about the law and the rights of citizens. Even without the appearance of compliance with the law, I was given a frank answer: “Your rights and legitimate interests, like the norms of the Constitution, are fiction. Calm down.”

Still too obvious. And I, of course, will not “quiet”. A cassation appeal presupposes my direct participation in the process, i.e. I had the legal right to present all that spam, which is called the verdict addressed to me and all subsequent decisions (the same spam), to both the court and the public. Because the court is open. This right was, with frank immediacy, illegally denied to me. Well. Thanks nonetheless. After all, this, after such a rejection of the killer whale, is an obvious basis for appealing to the ECHR. And that rare case when a violation of at least Art. 6, 13 "European Convention" and art. Articles 52, 53, 120 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation are obvious. That is, my right to a fair, legal and professional trial, to access to justice and protection from legal arbitrariness is completely openly and obviously ignored.

Of course, Judge Syrova is now a star. But for all that, I don’t think that her star status was the reason for such undisguised legal nihilism, but simply rudeness. Simply, both omerta and the level of argumentation in its implementation are the natural essence of Russian “justice”. I have enough examples. Documented by the authors of omerta, confident in their impunity, and therefore irrefutable.

Please consider this publication to be my initial appeal to the ECHR, as well as to the Chairman of the RF Supreme Court V.M. Lebedev, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and the Investigative Committee of the Russian Federation. I am attaching my complaint to the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to the response of Judge Rolgeiser to this publication, and I am ready to submit all other documents - the “chain of omerta” - to the indicated authorities and the media upon request.

I also consider it possible and absolutely acceptable to contact the relevant committee of the US Congress on human rights, the National Bureau of Immigration and Naturalization and the US Embassy in Moscow with a request for an interview.

PS 08/11/12 I will represent the interests of Mr. Chekhovsky A.A. (a “non-citizen” of the Republic of Latvia) as a public defender on the issue of parole. My status was accepted by the ECHR in the primary complaint sent by me in the interests of Mr. Chekhovsky, the Latvian Embassy in Moscow and the Prosecutor General's Office of Latvia were also notified about the situation with the sentence against this person (the same spam, Article 163 of the Criminal Code (“Extortion”). I’ll definitely tell you the results.