Translated material
The story of betrayal Samutsevich
This post would never have appeared if I had even the slightest doubt that it could cause negative consequences for Masha and Nadya. After the decision of the court in Berezniki, doubts disappeared. There simply cannot be more negative consequences than now.
The decision of the Bereznikovsky court to grant a deferment of Masha Alekhina’s sentence did not come as a surprise to me personally, because in all these months that have passed since the defense team left, we knew something that explained the situation related to the fate of Nadya and Masha who remained in prison.
And I do not relieve myself of the blame for the split in the group, the collapse of the community and the depoliticization of the matter. Who, if not me, should have noticed a change in the behavior of my client. There had to be “bells” that I had to notice. I didn't notice. And Nadezhda and Maria opened our eyes to what was happening, and they turned out to be much better informed than the lawyers.
It is no secret to Nadya and Masha that Katya made a deal. And this deal is primarily with conscience. How many kilometers did Katya travel around the cell the night before the cassation? Is this why she experiences such fear from a personal (even in the presence of new lawyers) meeting with us? You'll have to look up. And it is precisely this meeting of the eyes that Katya is so afraid of. I understand her.
The “rescue” plan that was developed for Katya initially presupposed a complete change in her position to an individual one. This plan provided for the recognition of the fact of the crime. And the absence of Catherine’s guilt in his commission. But if there was a crime, then... This plan saved her, but not her friends. And they understood this.
Let's call it a deal. But this is the kind of deal that saved only one of the participants, but drowned the other two. And lawyers. The authorities have set the task of completely destroying the Pussy Riot community. And it was a success.
I long ago received the right to publish documents evidencing the Samutsevich deal. But I wasn’t ready to do it mentally. It seemed to me that the fragile community could be restored, that perhaps our departure from the case would help Nadya and Masha gain freedom. Masha’s latest case showed that even our absence from the case will not help the girls “there”, and they will not come out.
Here (below) are Katya’s interviews that she gave to various publications during this time. The constant lies, first of all, aggravated the situation of Nadya and Masha. At the same time, lawyers are accused of dishonesty. Slander in some mythical financial transactions, brand takeover. Meanwhile, Nadya herself, after a discussion within the group, writes that “we need to give way to the brand.” And that its very existence is not a contradiction to the political views of the “anarchists”. But... Katya is organizing a scandal around the brand, and my colleague Mark Feigin, in the eyes of even the liberal public, looks like a person trying to take over the brand... In fact, an accusation of fraud was made. Meanwhile, it sounded loudly to the whole world. And it died down... We personally suffered huge losses associated with the registration of the brand, which were assigned to us. But we don’t care about money, we finally want the truth.
The documents that I published today are the truth that has already been heard many times. Therefore, it will not be a secret to anyone. But from the dungeons she is more convincing. I have only erased very personal notes that I considered unethical to publish and that are not relevant.
And that's not all, there is more evidence. I really hope that Katya will tell the truth. He’ll just get up one day and understand that he can’t live with such a burden. He will tell you that no freedom seems sweet when it is obtained at the expense of loved ones. Do it for yourself. This will not worsen your procedural situation.
STAGES OF THE GREAT JOURNEY - from trial, release to the present day. (The processing of speeches in the media has not yet been completed, but what is there creates an interesting picture. From a political action, to obtaining French citizenship and sexist criticism of the opposition leader.)
08/07/2012 Katya’s speech in the debate. Politically oriented. Written independently, without instructions or requests from lawyers.
08/16/2012 "Novaya Gazeta" Politically oriented interview with Katya about events in the KhHS and the process.
08/28/2012 Grani-Guardian. A politically oriented interview with Katya about the events in the KhHS and the process.
02.10.2012. " The Moscow Times " Media assumption that the “dismissal of the lawyer” occurred due to pressure from the authorities.
10.10.2012 Katya’s speech in the Moscow City Court. " Izvestia " noted that Katya's speech was the shortest. “Politics” completely disappeared from the speech.
All interviews from 10/10/12 to 10/15/12. “The position has not changed fundamentally, there are no complaints about the lawyers. He cannot explain the change of lawyers. He talks about the new position from which the new lawyer began working.”
10/15/2012 Big City. The action is not political, but feminist; if more was said about the fact that we are feminists, it would be clearer why we went to the temple and not somewhere else. I am sure that the lawyers did not want anything bad for us, they fought for us as best they could. It was not an ethical mistake; we made it consciously. (A detailed analysis of this first interview, where Katya left the political topic, was analyzed by Latynina on Gazeta.Ru . I don’t agree with her on everything, but...)
10/17/2012. "Sobchak alive." Neutral interview , not a word about lawyers. Softly about politics. Modest about feminism.
10/22/2012 " Interlocutor " Talks about a political speech. About the intention to continue working in the group and preparations for actions. About the fact that he not only plays instruments, but also sings. Not a word about lawyers.
On November 1, 2012, after a trip to Oslo, Sobchak announced the theft of the Pussy Riot brand by Feigin and his wife’s company, Web Bio. The scandal was supported by Kommersant .
11/19/2012 Lenta.ru S: They were not lawyers. I signed blank sheets of paper. This is the first time I’ve heard about the brand, I didn’t sign the contract, the signature looks like mine (later this was refuted by a graphological examination). They didn’t return their passport, the keys to the apartment, they didn’t go to the detention center... The action is not political, but in defense of the ideas of feminism and LGBT... The lawyers could not bring this to the court, they behaved aggressively towards the victims, Volkova twisted her finger to her temple... Money, brand, brand, dirt, dirt, dirt... A word in defense of Orlova’s cellmate: she didn’t persuade her to do anything.
11/20/2012 MGER resource. “As soon as they abandoned the stubborn punitive lawyers, Samutsevich’s real sentence was replaced with a suspended sentence. In time, the girl realized that they did not need a not guilty verdict.”
11/21/2012. " The Moscow Times " A statement that she was not given personal belongings and the intention to “deprive the licenses” of all three lawyers was made by the new lawyer Badamshin and Ekaterina Samutsevich.
On November 21, 2012, Samutsevich accused the group’s former lawyers of theft and deception and accuses them of continuing to imprison other members of the group. The lawyers failed in their duties as defense attorneys by using a high-profile case for personal career advancement rather than to adequately defend their clients. Declared its intention to deprive three lawyers of their licenses.
12/01/2012 RSN , radio station. “Unfortunately, our complaint regarding the arrest and preventive measures failed, since the previous lawyers did not have time to file it.” “I don’t plan and don’t want to immigrate from Russia.” "There will be no remorse."
12/03/2012 " Dniester ". Transnistria. “Former Pussy Riot lawyers have accumulated thousands of dollars in their personal bank accounts, sent by our fans from all over the world to support us,” Samutsevich says in an interview.
12/11/2012 RAPSI . Samutsevich filed a complaint with the Chamber of Lawyers about deprivation of her lawyer status. She calls their behavior “unethical and humiliating.” She demands that her things (keys and passport) be returned to her, and that she also give her a complaint to the ECHR.
12/11/2012 " Rain ", TV channel. A complaint has been filed against the lawyers.
12/14/2012. " FTMagazine " "PR" is not a political group, but a feminist one. This is precisely the reason for the quarrel with the lawyers who imposed political protection, as well as the fact that the group members do not have good relations with the opposition. Calls Navalny the second Putin in connection with his similar “macho image.” Lawyers turned ordinary PR artists into victims of the regime.
12/17/2012 Polit.ru . The lawyers cooperated with the authorities, since they repeatedly received offers from them to admit guilt. Lawyers demanded that letters of repentance be signed for the Russian Orthodox Church. Agora lawyers found out that the complaint to the ECHR (initial) was filed incorrectly and was not satisfied by the ECHR. Because of the former lawyers, the deadline for filing a complaint against the preventive measure to the ECHR for Masha and Nadya has been missed and they will no longer be able to appeal it. (See previous blog topics and documents.) Feigin and the brand. Volkova and passport. There is a new passport, but it may be used somehow. A complaint has been filed with the Chamber against the lawyers. Money was stolen. We starred in the film. “Nadya and Masha apologized to the Orthodox, I did not apologize.”
12/08/2012, " Kommersant ", Tumanov "Punk prayer reached Strasbourg." The image of freedom fighters has been destroyed. “When the lawyers filed the first complaint, the court asked them to send additional documents, but they did not do this, so the complaint is not even considered filed. It is no longer possible to file a complaint against the arrest a second time, since all the legal deadlines have expired,” explained Ms. Khrunova. (I will announce the filing of a claim against Kommersant regarding this fact separately.)
01/15/2013. Samutsevich’s withdrawal of complaints against lawyers Volkova and Polozov. Without explanation.
01/15/2013 " Rain ", TV company. S: I have never filed a complaint against lawyers.
01/15/2013 The Pussy Riot project is completed. Anyone can do it. Friends are making me a French passport. I don't mind immigrating.
*** The text of the letters contains the names of the cellmates - Olya and Ira. Irina Orlova (the relationship with whom Nadezhda called “Mother and Daughter”, and in slang it is called “mother”), according to Nadya, was involved in the Samutsevich deal at the direction of the operatives, which was witnessed by Olga Voznyak. Both women are still in pre-trial detention center No. 6. Moreover, I. Orlova, convicted under Article 159 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation, has been there for several years, apparently carrying out simple instructions from security officers. It is she who is defended by Katya in the media. It was she who received the first transfer from Katya to pre-trial detention center-6 after her release.
*** 3.5 months have passed since the cassation. During this period, of the events known to me, only a short complaint was filed with the ECHR regarding Katya Samutsevich, and complaints about the postponement of Masha and Nadya. Masha was heard on January 16, 2013. Next up is Nadya. The result, I think, leaves no one in doubt...
And the documents:
Nadya and Masha hoped that politically at the cassation they would be together with Kat. But politics left her position. She made her choice - freedom.
And this is my “indulgence” for this publication.
Letter one.
Page one
Masha!
Hugs.
Yesterday we had a very, very good talk in the paddy wagon. On the way back.
1. Now the question arose about continuing cooperation with lawyers.
As you know, I think of everything through the prism of history. For the sake of history, I am ready to endure shit (this is idealism - the good in me, but there is probably some bad in it too).
That’s why I don’t like the prospect: because of the illusory chance of leaving early, I’ll give up the lawyers with whom we are – politically(!) – in the same camp.
I really think that all this is not only a gift to Katya, but also a trap for us (political, historical). So that we twitch our paws.
We understand that even if we hesitate (we turn to Khrunova’s services), we will most likely be plunged face-first into feces.
In addition, we believe that October 10th is a political move for:
1) compliance with the covenants of the “dvushechka”, 2) at least partial compliance with the PACE resolution.
I'm inclined to think that the two-piece (or so) will stay with us no matter what we do.
We now have 3 immediate stages at which we could change lawyers:
- Now - to get a chance to stay in Moscow
- On supervision (from the colony)
- Parole.
Now - we decided this with you yesterday (?) We don’t twitch.
For supervision: I have a proposal - to write and submit complaints independently, with the consulting participation of our lawyers' lawyers. So that they fuck us, not them.
page 2.
I see that K. and M. [Kolya and Mark] are ready to move on. Politically. Make sure the business doesn't die.
If we give them up for the hope of getting out, we:
a) we are finally killing the PR process as a political one and, in particular, the dear reference to dissidents (judging by your stories and the last word)
b) we find ourselves in the zone without [inaudible] supporting us.
What do you say?
2. Question about Petya.
He continues to publicly represent the group.
They write letters to me that he is recruiting for the group.
I think (and you spoke about this yesterday) that the statement still needs to be released. Maybe modify it(?). So that our opinion with you is known. Kat will indicate her opinion, but we must also make our attitude clear.
PS (to point No. 1) My dad writes to me: “Go to the end, even if you understand that it will not be realized in the foreseeable future.”
Letter two.
Page one.
Masha!
Olga came into my cell.
She's from 110. Be careful with Ira!
She told me a lot about what happened from about September 27-28 until Kat's release.
A few days before October 1, Ira began to convince Katya that “she doesn’t need to sit.” And she began to convince her of changing lawyers and individualizing guilt.
The strange thing is that on October 1st Kat did not tell us anything about this reason for changing lawyers. She talked about issues of trust, money,... but not that we can collectively improve our lot by individualizing guilt.
Kat had a very strange relationship with Ira. From March to June they had counters with Ira. Afterwards, the operatives talked to Ira (as Kat herself said) and their relationship with Kat became “mother-daughter” (Olga says). Extremely paternalistic relationships. I'm not saying, but there is evidence that Kat came under Ira's undue influence in prison. She tolerated the fact that Ira fed her almost with a spoon.
Well, the opera could take advantage of this trust. I missed the information about changing lawyers through Ira.
Plus Kat was in an unstable condition and was worried lately. I was waiting for the PSC (for example, I don’t understand why we need the PSC). She rushed to the stern with the words: “This is definitely the POC now.”
Before the 10th I was worried. I walked around the cell. For a long time. (for example, I didn’t give a fuck about the cassation process).
Page two.
More. Ira, after Kat did not return, said that same evening: “We will now be disbanded.” How did she know about this, if not from the operas?
In general, I don’t say anything unequivocally. In any case, my attitude towards Kat is stable. Good.
I just don’t want Ira to have any chance to influence you and me.
It’s not for nothing that the pregnant woman was transferred, and Ira was assigned to you.
---------- Nadya! Thanks for the information! I took notes for myself.
Masha! Try to find out from Ira what happened with Kat.
This is very interesting, at least based on indirect signs.
Even in front of Kat, Ira said that she treats you badly.
When they were dispersed, Ira, having learned that they would go to 210,
She said with a wrinkled face: “It’s ironic.
Do you also remember that Kat explained there, in her petition, “the divergence of positions is a formality.”
Although in reality this was not a form, but a change in the line of defense to individualization.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
PS) I wrote a public letter through the letter carrier that we are not divided and embrace Kat, we are glad of her freedom.
Masha: I wrote to Katya too, only in person. There are a lot of different things, I advised you to be more talkative with journalists.
If [I] haven’t yet managed to get Ira to leave, I’ll talk to her.
Letter three.
MASHA WRITES:
About the brand.
Look. I talked to Mark about business for a painfully long time. And yet I think it should be done. I don't think we'll be seen as political degenerates if we just stick to our name. Why do you think it's dirt? We ourselves will decide who to sue, who to give rights to, etc., and most importantly, we will be able to do something good with the money raised.
Otherwise it will end up in [inaudible] someone else who will just profit.
This decision is very difficult for me, but still here it is. Answer, plz.
NADIA WRITES:
More than a difficult decision.
The problem is that any further statement we make on a political topic will be countered by the fact that “they get money from their political activities.”
We need to decide: will we continue to engage in political activities?
Does it shine for us - despite the fact that Russia is a conservative country and condemns punk prayer?
Will we be able to engage in politics if we are constantly asked about our brand? Maybe yes, if we donate $ for social needs. Organize the same housing for women who have been subjected to domestic violence.
We must understand that this is a drift from anarchism to social democracy. But Russia does not differentiate between social democrats and liberals, so we will be “liberals”. Like M. Feigin, for example.
There is nothing wrong with this: we can adopt a strategy of “small good deeds” and then we will use capitalism for social purposes. Maybe this is better than silver-free, ascetic, teenage, subcultural anarchism. Maybe our “good deeds” will say what we want to say better than we will say on our own (considering our unfortunate reputation as blasphemers in the eyes of Russians).
I tend to do everything with a brand. Still, more likely yes than no. But let's think about it until tomorrow? We'll decide tomorrow.
MASHA WRITES:
You, too, feel this moment of a certain betrayal of anarchism, but I am sure that if we take into account what Russia needs today, how exactly we can be useful and, most importantly, what form of benefit people are ready to accept, then “liberalism” (like M. Feigin) is certainly more profitable than anarchy.
Well, in terms of brand, we are approximately in agreement, apparently.
According to lawyers. We do not enter into agreements. Agree.
Well, captain, we will never change our position, on the contrary, we will make the speech even more political (I certainly hope the judge will not shut me up).
NADIA WRITES:
Well, ok. Let's give the brand a way.
Regarding the position on cassation: do you want to take a “naive” position of faith in Russian justice? I’m not sure that personally, after the chemical process, this will come out sincerely.
MASHA WRITES:
Well, I want to [inaudible] say with irony of course. I just think that politically this is true, we are patriots and that’s all. This is not so much faith in Russian justice, but rather a statement of the fact that now justice in the eyes of the world community is in the ass, and it was cool to get him out of there, and we hope...
MASHA WRITES:
About the brand.
Look. I talked to Mark about business for a painfully long time. And yet I think it should be done. I don't think we'll be seen as political degenerates if we just stick to our name. Why do you think it's dirt? We ourselves will decide who to sue, who to give rights to, etc., and most importantly, we will be able to do something good with the money raised.
Otherwise it will end up in [inaudible] someone else who will just profit.
This decision is very difficult for me, but still here it is. Answer, plz.
NADIA WRITES:
More than a difficult decision.
The problem is that any further statement we make on a political topic will be countered by the fact that “they get money from their political activities.”
We need to decide: will we continue to engage in political activities?
Does it shine for us - despite the fact that Russia is a conservative country and condemns punk prayer?
Will we be able to engage in politics if we are constantly asked about our brand? Maybe yes, if [inaudible] we donate to social needs. Organize the same housing for women who have been subjected to domestic violence.
We must understand that this is a drift from anarchism to social democracy. But Russia does not differentiate between social democrats and liberals, so we will be “liberals”. Like M. Feigin, for example.
There is nothing wrong with this: we can adopt a strategy of “small good deeds” and then we will use capitalism for social purposes. Maybe this is better than silver-free, ascetic, teenage, subcultural anarchism. Maybe our “good deeds” will say what we want to say better than we will say on our own (considering our unfortunate reputation as blasphemers in the eyes of Russians).
I tend to do everything with a brand. Still, more likely yes than no. But let's think about it until tomorrow? We'll decide tomorrow.
[skip?]
MASHA WRITES:
You, too, feel this moment of a certain betrayal of anarchism, but I am sure that if we take into account what Russia needs today, how exactly we can be useful and, most importantly, what form of benefit people are ready to accept, then “liberalism” (like M. Feigin) is certainly more profitable than anarchy.
Well, in terms of brand, we are approximately in agreement, apparently.
According to lawyers. We do not enter into agreements. Agree.
Well, cap, we will never change our position, on the contrary, make the speech even more political (I certainly hope the judge will not shut me up).
NADIA WRITES:
Well, ok. Let's give the brand a way.
Regarding the position on cassation: do you want to take a “naive” position of faith in Russian justice? I’m not sure that personally, after the chemical process, this will come out sincerely.
MASHA WRITES:
Well, I want to [inaudible] say with irony of course. I just think that politically this is true, we are patriots and that’s all. This is not so much faith in Russian justice, but rather a statement of the fact that now justice in the eyes of the world community is in the ass, and it was cool to get him out of there, and we hope...