Journalism in Lithuania is finally criminalised, the highest court has ruled

Journalism in Lithuania is finally criminalised, the highest court has ruled

Aurimas Drižius

The highest court in the land has once again made it clear to me that my place has been in prison for a very long time.
Because I am arguing that all these gangs, which call themselves the “legal system”, are working for political gangs. have been behind bars for a very long time.
“No, you are behind bars because you criticise the government”, my Supreme Court judges Alė Bukavinienė, Jūratė Varanauskaitė, Dalia Vasarienė (photo above) explained.
I realise that I have been bothering all my readers for a very long time, but I will briefly reiterate once again that this is the tenth time I have appealed to the “judiciary” on the grounds of unbridled thuggery, i.e. on the grounds of the introduction and legalisation of censorship of the press, persecution and terrorisation of the press.
I have been trying for twelve years now to abolish the censorship imposed on me by this gang of gangsters on the orders of the owner of the ‘Excommissaries’, Mr Sadecki.
That is to say, the court imposed censorship, forbidding me to write articles about Sadeck and his role in the privatisation of Mažeikių nafta.
Censorship is directly prohibited by the highest legal act of the Republic of Lithuania – the Constitution, Article 44(1) of which clearly states that “censorship of mass information is prohibited”.
The Constitutional Court has clarified what censorship is: “Censorship is the control of the content of the press, films, radio and television broadcasts, theatrical performances and other public events in order to prevent the dissemination of certain messages and ideas. It is important for democracy that public opinion is free to form. This means, in particular, that the establishment of a mass media outlet and its ability to operate should not depend on the content of future publications or broadcasts.”.
In addition, Article 10 of the Law on Public Information “Prohibition of unlawful restrictions on freedom of information” states: “Censorship of public information is prohibited in the Republic of Lithuania. Any action aimed at controlling the content of information published in the mass media prior to its publication shall be prohibited, except in cases provided for by law.”
Censorship is Sadecký’s request for a ban on articles about him, because the court granted such a request and introduced it, and then rejected my requests for the abolition of censorship eight times.
The lower courts tell me that I have already missed the five-year limitation period for reopening the case, that is, the courts refer to the period of validity or operation of the Constitution as five years.
And this cunning panel of the Supreme Court of Lithuania told me that I again “The cassation appeal states that the final decision of the Vilnius City First District Court of 10 April 2009 is contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Law on Public Information, because the court imposed censorship, and cites legal norms, but it does not cite any legal arguments to justify the fact that the courts, in deciding on the question of the reopening of the proceedings in the case, refused to reopen it unjustifiably and unlawfully”.

In other words, Article 44 of the Constitution, which states that ‘censorship of mass information is prohibited’, ‘does not constitute any legal argument whatsoever’, those so-called LATO foxes tell me.

2023-05-24nutartis-dokumenteDOK-2371Parsisiųsti

Then what the fuck is a “legal argument” if even a direct instruction from the Constitution to “judges” is no argument at all.

What other “legal argument” do you want, you fucking cocksuckers?

Not only have you already ruined my life by persecuting me for ten years for my legal activities, leaving me disabled and a cripple, but in the end, you also legitimise your whole ‘thuggery’ by stating that ‘the Constitution is not such a legal argument’.

By the way, a very interesting article – the aforementioned Vasariene recently wrote an article about our right to an “independent court”

I remind these perverted bimbos : Article 6 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania says :

The Constitution shall be an integral and directly applicable act.
Anyone may defend his rights on the basis of the Constitution.
Article 7
No law or other act contrary to the Constitution shall be valid.
Article 5 of the Judiciary Law. The right to an independent, impartial and expeditious tribunal states that 1. A person shall have the right to have his or her case heard fairly by an independent and impartial tribunal constituted in accordance with the law.

The court shall, in all its activities, ensure that cases are dealt with in a fair and public manner within the shortest possible time.
Article 33. Sources of the law on the hearing of cases : 1. When hearing cases, courts shall be guided by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, this and other laws, international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania, Government resolutions, other legal acts in force in the Republic of Lithuania, which are not contrary to the law.
When hearing cases, the courts shall also be guided by the officially promulgated decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania.
In this case, all the decisions of the courts – the imposition of censorship, and the prosecution of the press on the basis of Sadecki’s false complaints and testimonies – are in direct contradiction to the above-mentioned clauses of the Constitution and the Law on Courts.
The courts seem to be limiting the validity and operation of the Constitution, stating that after five years the requirements of the Constitution are no longer valid. Of course, this is an abuse of the law, but not a single court dares to declare that this persecution of me for more than ten years is illegal.
It is pointed out to the court that in the 10 years that I have been harassed for perfectly legitimate activities, the court has never once referred to the fact that censorship is forbidden by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, and that this constitutes a fundamental violation of the CPC norm.
Article 3 of the CPC. Proceedings under the applicable law states that :

The court must hear cases in accordance with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania (“the Constitution”), the international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania, the laws of the Republic of Lithuania and other legal acts. In interpreting and applying laws and other legal acts, the Court must be guided by the principles of justice, fairness and reasonableness.
In this case, the court has imposed censorship and is in no way willing to accept this. The Supreme Court of Lithuania has repeatedly stated on censorship: “As regards the violation of the public’s right to know…members of the public have the right to participate in discussions, evaluations and communication with each other on matters of their choice of employer, a limitation of such a right would be contrary to the principles of law and democracy. The Constitution guarantees and protects the public’s interest in being informed. The right to impart information cannot be restricted not only by state-imposed censorship but also by private censorship, which is possible when, in violation of the principle of proportionality and in disregard of the requirement of a balance between two equal rights, the only thing that is protected is the protection of professional reputation.
As is well known, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the supreme legal document of the Republic of Lithuania, which is permanently in force and in force. It is complemented by the Law on Public Information. Both of them imperatively prohibit censorship. The Court has not said a word about the requirements of the Constitution in the whole ten years, so it must be assumed that the Constitution is not subject to a statute of limitations, i.e. the Court cannot restrict the validity of the Constitution, and determine to what extent and until when it is valid.
As you know, censorship was introduced back in 2010, and in that time, the courts have rejected my requests to lift the censorship ten times. The most recent request was heard by the Supreme Court of Lithuania on 7 August 2019 in case No 3P-1352/2019 (copy attached). As always, everything ended with a forged ruling. That is, the Supreme Court panel stated that the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania “does not constitute a serious legal argument” and therefore did not abolish censorship.

Today I will also contact Nausėda and the Prosecutor’s Office to prosecute the Mitėos panel for abuse and falsification of documents