When did the entire judiciary and prosecution system turn into an organised gang of thugs?
Yesterday I received yet another “otpyska” from Deputy Prosecutor General Gints Ivanauskas.
The prosecutor informed me that I have never been convicted of any legal activity, I have never been prosecuted by this gang of thugs who proudly call themselves the “legal system”, they have never tried to kill me by staging a car crash:
All this simply did not happen, it is my hallucination. Maybe I’m actually dreaming and I need to go to the doctors? Then I look at the court rulings, the land I have been dispossessed of, the family property that is being parcelled out, and I come back to reality – no, I am not dreaming after all.
As Geoge Bush said, ‘if people knew what we have done, they would follow us around with ropes in their hands’. That is why I am trying to tell people once again that justice in Lithuania is delivered by people who have been on the gallows for a very long time, or who have to be followed with a rope in their hand. There is a familiar metaphor here. However, I do believe that all these ‘officials’ will end up where they have been for a very long time – in prison. All we have to do is wait for the new elections to the Seimas and get rid of the roof of this gang – all the šedbars, sabatauskas, shirinskiensis, etc.
I have contacted the GP regarding the alleged crime of falsification of a document by Judge Vaidachavičienė of the Panevėžys District Court.
Vaidachavičienė stated in her ruling that there is no “objective evidence” that there are no elements of criminal offences under Articles 228 and 229 of the CC (abuse of office, non-performance of official duties) established in the actions of Judge Striaukas of the Vilnius City District Court, Judges Audrius Cininas of the Vilnius Regional Court, Virginija Pakalnytė-Tamošiūnaitė, Gintaras Dzedulionis, and Prosecutor Kisinienė”.
Although the aforementioned chamber in criminal case No. 1A-815-497/2014 convicted me for a legitimate activity – journalism, declaring it a criminal activity, “this is not objective data”.
The Vilnius City District Court imposed censorship on me and the weekly newspaper “Laisvas laikraštis” back in 2009, forbidding me to write articles about the activities of Alvydas Sadecko, former chairman of the Seimas Committee on National Security and Defence, in the privatisation of AB Mažeikių nafta. The censorship was described as “non-compliance with a court decision”.
Mindaugas Kukaitis, Sadecki’s lawyer and the current chairman of the Bar Council, explained in court that I should be banned from writing articles about Sadecki because “writing articles is like making fake sneakers”. For example, if I come up with the idea of making fake Nike shoes, the court can ban me from doing so in advance,” Kukaitis explained with serious physiognomy. Courts still accept Kukaitis’ view that “banning the production of counterfeit shoes is equivalent to banning the press”.
Since then, this gang has been persecuting me for a perfectly legitimate activity – journalism – completely forgetting Article 44(1) of the Constitution, which stipulates that “censorship of mass information is forbidden”.
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.”
The above-mentioned Vilnius City District, Regional and Supreme Courts have already rejected my requests for the abolition of censorship eight times, during which time I have been convicted seven times for lawful activities for allegedly “disobeying a court order” (i.e. censorship), my and my family’s property has been sold off at auction, and I have been turned into a beggar and a cripple, with the same “court” system ignoring any requirements of the Constitution and the law.
Furthermore, I have provided the court with evidence that Sadeckas was a key figure in the privatisation of Mažeikių Nafta, personally deciding to whom the shares of this company should be sold, and changing the law so that this company could be replaced by the Russian company Yukos.
I pointed out that I have been persecuted for many years for my journalism by the so-called prosecutor’s office and the judicial system, which completely ignores the requirements of the law and the Constitution, and which ignores the written evidence and documents I have submitted and presents them as my fabrications or as non-existent.
Moreover, the so-called judges pretend that they do not know the fundamental law of the country, the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania. Article 6 of the Constitution says: ‘The Constitution is an integral and directly applicable law. Anyone can defend his rights on the basis of the Constitution.
Article 7 – No law or other act contrary to the Constitution shall be valid.
In this case, all the decisions of the courts – the imposition of censorship, and the persecution of the press on the basis of Sadecki’s false complaints and testimony – are in direct contradiction to the above-mentioned points of the Constitution.
The fact that the judges knowingly and deliberately, knowing that they are convicting a man for a legitimate activity, apply censorship, which is prohibited by Article 44 of the Constitution, means that the judges have broken the Constitution and their oath of office, and must therefore be held accountable.
If deliberately sending innocent people to prison is not a crime, then what is abuse of office? Article 46 of the Judicial Law. Independence of judges and courts states: “The judge and the courts shall be independent in the administration of justice. Judges shall obey only the law when hearing cases. In reaching its decision, the court shall be guided by those laws which do not contradict the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania, by Government resolutions which do not contradict laws, and by other normative acts which do not contradict laws and Government resolutions”.
In this case, it is clear that the judges not only disobeyed the law, but also disregarded the Constitution and relied on a criminal and illegal “court decision” to impose censorship. And the courts, abusing their office and falsifying their rulings, have refused to lift this censorship for more than ten years – my request to lift the censorship has been refused eight times, with judges falsifying their rulings. This is therefore organised criminal activity.
The Criminal Code provides for the possibility of reinstating the ‘penitentiary’ if you can prove that judges have abused it. Because this whole gang made sure earlier that an article that was still in the Lithuanian Criminal Code under the Soviets disappeared from the Criminal Code – it stated that judges who acted against the law were punished with long years in prison.
To date, there has never been a single case in Lithuania where an innocent person who was convicted has been acquitted because he or she proved that the judge abused the law. The prosecutor’s office simply refuses to investigate such crimes, and writes a “note” saying that there was no crime. And you can’t appeal it to the courts.
So, I have asked for the prosecution of the above-mentioned “beacons” of the legal system – Cininas, Dzedulionis, Pakalnyte.
The complaint was examined by Judge Vaidachavičienė of the Panevėžys Regional Court, who included in her ruling false and untrue information, namely: “The applicant bases his statements on a subjective opinion, which is not supported by any objective facts. The mere fact that, in the applicant’s opinion, Judges Striaukas, Cininas, Pakalnytė-Tamošiūnienė, Dzedulionis and Kisinienė are committing criminal offences does not constitute grounds for opening a pre-trial investigation. In order for a pre-trial investigation to be initiated, at least the minimum factual evidence of a possible criminal offence must be provided to the pre-trial investigation bodies and the court. In the present case, the Regional Court finds that the applicant has not provided any such data and that there is no basis for opening a pre-trial investigation on the basis of the subjective opinion of Mr Drižis alone” and “…the specific procedural decisions of the judges mentioned by the applicant and the actions of the public prosecutor in upholding the public prosecution do not in themselves imply the commission of any criminal offence. There is no objective evidence that the judges and the prosecutor in question have abused their office, failed to perform or improperly performed their duties in the exercise of their professional functions”.
In my complaint to the Public Prosecutor’s Office, I pointed out that this is knowingly false and untrue information that Judge Vaidachavičienė included in her order and thus falsified it.
All the information I have given about the censorship imposed and the persecution for legal activities is true and confirmed by documents, by the same court rulings that Judge Vaidachavičienė knew very well. However, she concluded that there was no such thing, no censorship, no persecution for legal activities, no ten years of terror by the ‘law enforcement’ and constant breaking of the law. Judge Vaidachavičienė therefore committed the crime of falsifying an official document by inserting knowingly false data into it, and thereby forging it.
On the criminal activity provided for in Article 300(I) of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania Pursuant to Article 300(I) of the CC of the Republic of Lithuania, anyone who has produced a false document or has possessed, transported, sent, used or disposed of a document which is knowingly false or which has been known to be false shall be liable for the crime.
Forgery of a genuine document shall be understood as altering the authenticity of the document and the truthfulness of its contents. Forgery of a genuine document is not only committed when the perpetrator unlawfully alters the form and/or content of an authentic document, by such unlawful acts, by inserting information which is not true, with the intention of releasing such document into legal circulation as genuine, but also when the perpetrator, objectively entitled to do so, draws up, prints or otherwise produces certain documents in his name, unlawfully draws up, prints or otherwise produces such a document in his or her own name, by inserting in it information which does not correspond to the truth, or by certifying the objectively untrue data included in the document by another person with a signature, seal or other means, with a view to releasing such a document into legal circulation as genuine (Cassation Rulings Nos. 2K-7-35/2011, 2K-223-976/2020).
A genuine document may be materially falsified, i.e. when the perpetrator by his/her own actions changes the information recorded in the document (e.g., alteration of a part of the text, alteration of a photograph, alteration of a signature and other details, etc.) (cassation rulings in criminal cases No. 2K-500/2005, 2K 805/2005), and intellectually (e.g., insertion of false information into the document) (cassation rulings in criminal cases No. 2K-132/2008, 2K-607/2007).
The production of a false document is one of the forms of falsification of a document, i.e. actions which, by any means, create a document which is false both in form and in content, and where false information which does not correspond to reality is entered into the document. False data are data that do not correspond to reality (cassation rulings in criminal cases No 2K-387/2008, 2K-7-19-942/2017).
The Constitution of Lithuania stipulates that justice shall be administered only by the courts and that all citizens of Lithuania are equal before the law. Article 43 of the Law on Courts. Duties of a Judge provides that 1. A judge shall be obliged to comply with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and other laws, to comply with the requirements of the Rules of Judicial Ethics. The Law on Courts stipulates that judges shall act impartially and obey only the law when administering justice. The country’s fundamental law, the Constitution, categorically and imperatively prohibits censorship. It is also prohibited by the Law on Public Information. Therefore, the judges who applied censorship and convicted an innocent man of censorship committed a crime – abuse of office. In order to save the judges who committed the crime, Judge Vaidachavičienė falsifies her ruling by stating that the circumstances described in the complaint did not exist. If a judge is suspected of having committed a criminal offence, his or her powers must be suspended until the court has given its final decision in the case and it becomes final.
Since the entire judiciary has been falsifying its own rulings for years and covering up for its own organised gang, refusing to abolish censorship, I have no alternative but to prosecute them for abuse.
The public prosecutor’s office knows full well that it can only refuse to open an IT if the statement is false. In this case, everything is very easily verifiable true. The Public Prosecutor’s Office must at some point take up its duty to investigate the crimes of judges too.
On the basis of the foregoing, I request that a pre-trial investigation be opened into the alleged crime of falsification of a document by Judge Vaidachavičienė of the Panevėžys Regional Court.
Annex – the contested order of Vaidachavičienė