President of Lithuania G.Nausėda and the Seimas guarantee judicial banditry („independence from the law”)
G.Nausėda and the Seimas guarantee judicial banditry („independence from the law“)
Both the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania and the guarantor of the Constitution, the President of the Republic of Lithuania, Gitanas Nausėda, guarantee legal banditry, when judges sentence people to jail for legal activities.
I contacted Nausėda and the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania after the following Supreme Court judge, Alvydas Pikelis, wrote to me that the Constitution is a „trivial legal document“, and that it is therefore perfectly legitimate in a „state governed by the rule of law“ to sentence citizens for their legitimate activities – journalism. For maybe the sixth time, I have asked for the reopening of a criminal case in which I was convicted back in 2014, just because I wrote an article about massive corruption in court.
Although the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Law on Courts oblige both the Seimas and the President to dismiss „a judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of the Court of Appeal for a serious violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania,“ both the Seimas and Nausėda are failing to fulfill their duties.
Nausėda’s grandmothers send such letters:
I also pointed out that the Supreme Court’s Deputy President, Justice Alvydas Pikelis, had informed me by letter No DOK-5130 dated 28-10-2022 that he had resolved the issue of his own impeachment, and had also stated that from now on, imprisonment of people for lawful activities was legal in the Republic of Lithuania, as the Constitution’s requirements were not „serious legal arguments“.
Of course, this letter from Pikelis is the best illustration of the „rule of law“. Although the judges of the Republic of Lithuania take an oath to serve and uphold the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, they then commit all sorts of crimes, and call the Constitution itself an „irrelevant legal document“. Although the Constitution clearly states that ‘no law contrary to the Constitution shall be valid’, the so-called judiciary laughs at the basic legal document of the Republic of Lithuania and calls it ‘irrelevant’.
Judge Pikelis, who signed such nonsense, should be immediately removed from office and tried for abuse, but the political and legal systems of the Republic of Lithuania will never do this, because the political system needs the cover of the ‘legal system’ or, in the language of the people, a ‘roof’ to cover its own crimes. Of course, it is only a matter of time before these mafia-like systems are brought to justice.
Judge Pikelis has already dealt with my request to reopen criminal case No 1A-815-497/2014, in which I was convicted for a perfectly legal activity – journalism. The court imposed censorship, which is categorically prohibited by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Law on Public Information. Judge Pikelis convicted me back in 2016 for writing an article about the massive corruption in the judiciary, after deciding to leave my complaint unheard. He just didn’t dare to write back in 2016 that the Constitution is an „irrelevant document“, so he refused to hear the complaint. Apparently it has already been dealt with. Five years later, he wrote that the Constitution is not a relevant document or argument.
Judge Pikelis said nothing about Article 44(1) of the Constitution, which provides that censorship of mass information is prohibited. Nor did he say anything about the fact that Judge Pikelis has already dealt with this criminal case. He has now heard it for the second time, and he has also convicted me of a lawful activity.
Judge Pikelis violated all the points of Article 58 of the CPC – he himself tried the same criminal case for the second time, and twice he left me convicted of lawful activity. He did this with an interest in the outcome of the case, because I will demand from Judge Pikelis that he compensate me for the enormous material and non-material damage I have suffered. In order to avoid future responsibility for his illegal actions, Judge Pikelis continues to reject my complaints. Although he should have been suspended, like all the other so-called judges, he judged me for my lawful activities.
Judge Pikelis has also spoken on the substance of my request, which is very simple. Journalism has not yet been criminalised in Lithuania, and censorship, i.e. the prohibition to engage in this activity, is categorically forbidden by the Constitution. With regard to Article 44(1) of the Constitution, which provides that censorship of mass information is forbidden, Judge Pikelis pointed out that the Constitution does not constitute „a significant new legal argument for misapplication of the law“. Of course, this opinion of Judge Pickel’s constitutes an offence which is very clearly defined in the Penal Code: it is an abuse.
As you know, on 18 October, I appealed to the so-called Supreme Court. In it, I pointed out that the President of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, Oleg Fedosiuk, had informed me by letter No DOK-3228 of 30 June 2022 that the laws and Constitution of Lithuania did not apply to my humble person and that I could be legally arrested, imprisoned and punished for a perfectly legitimate activity – journalism.
That is, O.Fedosiukas stated that: „On 13 June 2022, the Supreme Court (hereinafter referred to as the Court) received your repeated request to reopen criminal case No. 1A-815-497/2014 and acquit you. Please note that the issue of reopening of this criminal case has been considered and the Court decided not to reopen the case by its decision of 21 April 2016. The question of reopening the case shall not be reconsidered (Article 452(2) of the CPC). Pursuant to Article 453(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure of the Republic of Lithuania, the application is returned.
In my complaint, I pointed out that the panel of judges of the Vilnius Regional Court (VRC), Audrius Cininas, Virginija Pakalnytė-Tamošiūnaitė and Gintaras Dzedulionis, in criminal case No 1A-815-497/2014, sentenced me to imprisonment for my lawful activities – journalism and writing articles. Before that, the judge of the Vilnius City District Court, Mindaugas Striaukas, a drunk-driving enthusiast, did exactly the same.
I pointed out that the panel of judges had deliberately abused the law, knowing that censorship is forbidden by the Lithuanian Constitution and the Law on Public Information, knowing and understanding that the so-called victim, Alvydas Sadeckas, was giving false testimony, and yet they still sentenced me to prison time. I appealed to the Public Prosecutor’s Office for the crime of judicial abuse. The prosecutor’s office refused to investigate these crimes.
By the way, all those judges acted with direct intent – they knew perfectly well that they were sentencing me for legal activities, they knew that censorship was forbidden, because they had written it into the sentence, but they sentenced me anyway for legal activities. It is clear that the above-mentioned Chamber acted only with direct intent, taking revenge on me for the articles in the ‘Free Newspaper’ about the corruption of the judiciary and the fact that I had written a number of articles denouncing and criticising Judge Cinina, who himself invented the idea that ‘the victim’s memory has been erased’ in the Garliava paedophilia case, and thus committed another crime, namely, misuse of office.
The President of the Supreme Court Division, O. Fedosiukas, informed me that my appeal against the conviction had already been examined by the Chamber of the Supreme Court in a ruling of 21 April 2016. I inform the honourable court that the said Chamber did not say half a word on the introduction of censorship, criminalisation of journalism, etc. The court said nothing about the fact that the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and the Law on Public Information categorically prohibit censorship.
I repeat, no court has said anything about the fact that censorship is categorically forbidden by the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, the supreme law of the Republic of Lithuania. It also states that no legislation contrary to the Constitution is valid. Obviously, all the court rulings in question are unconstitutional and therefore invalid, but it is very difficult for judges to accept this. It is much easier to continue to pretend that nothing has happened and that everything is „legal“.
All the judges who convicted me for legal activities have been told what censorship is, which is prohibited by Article 44(1) of the Lithuanian Constitution, which 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.“.
Furthermore, 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.
Thus, the aforementioned panel of judges, realising that they were sending an innocent man to prison, did so. In this way, the aforementioned judges, A. Cininas, V. Pakalnytė-Tamošiūnaitė, and G. Dzedulionis, have committed a crime which is described as abuse of power and failure to perform their official duties.
Moreover, the aforementioned panel of judges did not at all consider the evidence I submitted that the victim, A.Sadeckas, gave false testimony during the trial. That is to say, I presented evidence that Mr Sadeckas was a key figure in the privatisation of Mažeikių nafta, and that he carried out the key privatisation actions. I.e. A.Sadeckas, in his capacity as Chairman of the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence, personally amended the Law on the Reorganisation of the Law on the Reorganisation of the Joint-Stock Companies Būtingės nafta, Mažeikių nafta and Naftotiekis, adopted by the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania on August 2, 2001, by amending Articles 3 and 4. The purpose of these amendments is to allow the Russian company Yukos to acquire one third of the shares in Mažeikių nafta held by WiIliams, as well as to acquire a new block of shares to be issued by the State and managed by it, so that the purchaser would hold more than 51% of the shares in Mažeikių nafta.
Judge Pikelis pointed out that the Constitution is not a „significant legal argument“. I ask you to explain to me how I can defend myself against courts that commit serious crimes and try people for legitimate activities, even though the Constitution guarantees me the right to an impartial and unbiased trial.
Although the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the supreme law, Judge Pikelis points out that it means nothing. This is a clear abuse, because the judge even swears on the Constitution and swears to protect it, not to break it in a blatant way.
Article 43 of the Judiciary Law. Duties of a Judge states that :
1. A judge shall be obliged to observe the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and other laws, to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Judicial Ethics.
Judge Pikelis not only failed to comply with the requirements of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, but also deliberately broke his oath of office, calling the Constitution „an insignificant document“, and I have therefore asked the President to initiate impeachment proceedings against Supreme Court Justice Pikelis for breaking his oath.
Article 90 of the Law on Courts. Dismissal of a Judge states that
1. A judge shall be dismissed from office in the following cases:
5) when his/her act brings the name of a judge into disrepute;
3. A judge of the Supreme Court shall be dismissed by the Seimas on the recommendation of the President of the Republic.
Article 91. The removal of a judge from office shall state that :
1. A judge of the Supreme Court, a judge of the Court of Appeal may be removed from office by the Seimas for a serious violation of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania or for violation of his oath of office, as well as if it is established that the judge has committed a criminal offence.
This legal practice, where even a judge of the highest court mocks the Constitution and the law, must end at some point.
I have asked the Seimas Committee on Legal Affairs to initiate an investigation into the activities of Judge Pikelis and to dismiss him from his office for gross violation of the Constitution.
I have received a letter from the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania No. S-2022 (copy enclosed), which states that I must address the Council of Judges regarding the crimes of Judge Pikelis. The letter states that „Having assessed the circumstances presented in your complaint, on the basis of which you are proposing to initiate impeachment of the judge of the Supreme Court, it is considered that subjective assumptions that the judge may have violated the Constitution in the performance of his duties or broken his oath of office are insufficient grounds for the application of a special parliamentary procedure, i.e., impeachment, and may be regarded as an interference of the Seimas in the activities of the court. Pursuant to Article 84(4) of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania, the Council of Judges, the Commission on Judicial Ethics and Discipline (hereinafter referred to as „the Commission“), as well as the president of the court where the judge works or the president of any court of a higher level, or any other person, who has become aware of the misconduct provided for in Article 83(2) of the Law (for an act disparaging the reputation of the judge), shall have the right to propose that a judge be brought before the Seimas for discipline proceedings; for violation of other requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct; for non-compliance with the restrictions on judges’ professional or political activities provided for by law).
The entity entitled to propose disciplinary proceedings shall submit to the Commission a reasoned proposal for bringing disciplinary proceedings against a judge. An act which brings a judge into disrepute is an act which is incompatible with the honour of a judge and which does not comply with the requirements of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and which demeans the name of a judge and undermines the authority of the court. Any official misconduct in the form of gross negligence in the performance of a specific judicial duty or failure to perform a specific duty without justification shall also constitute an act prejudicial to a judge’s title.
I therefore ask the Council of Judges, the President of the Supreme Court, and the Judicial Ethics Commission to initiate disciplinary proceedings against Judge Pikelis, who has informed me in writing that the Constitution is merely an „irrelevant piece of legislation“, and that it is a perfectly normal and legitimate „legal“ practice to try citizens of the Republic of Lithuania for their lawful activities. Such criminal and deliberate activity by Judge Pikelis cannot be seen as anything other than a criminal abuse of the powers vested in him. A Supreme Court judge cannot be unaware that the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania is the supreme law of the Republic of Lithuania, and not a „trivial document“. I also demand that the Supreme Court sanction Judge Pikelis’ conduct by advising the President and the Seimas to dismiss Pikelis from his position after he has demeaned the title of judge.
Annexes – the above-mentioned letter from Judge Pikelis of the Supreme Court, the above-mentioned letter from the Seimas