This letter was sent on 23 August 2023
Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Bean (The Court of Appeal)
Copy:
(1) The Right Honourable Lord Burnett of Maldon
(Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales)
(Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice)
Re: Cases (1) CA-2022-002495, (2) CA-2023-000481, (3) CA-2022-001211-B and (4) CL-2016-000831 (as a whole)
REGARDING PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE
Dear Rt. Hon. Lord Justice Bean
1. I am writing this letter to inform you that I consider your decisions of 11 August 2023 (cases CA-2022-001211-B, CA-2022-002495 and CA-2023-000481) not just illegal, but deliberately illegal (demonstratively deliberately illegal), which cannot be explained by anything other than corruption on the part of the Defendants - Russian oligarchs. In other words, it is about perverting the course of justice on your part DUE TO CORRUPTION.
2. The second and no less important purpose is to reduce the risks of my possible murder, which increased after the decisions of Mr Justice Bean and about which I, being the victim in the criminal case of death threats, informed the Latvian police 11 days before the decisions of Mr Justice Bean (relevant excerpts from my written statement as a victim dated 30 July are attached).
Something like an epigraph
3. As a kind of epigraph, I will quote 6 statements contained in emails from an unknown person (whose identity is now being established by the police in London and Latvia), which I began to receive starting from 22 May 2023, that is when my applications in all three cases were filed, but not yet considered by the Court of Appeal. These emails say that in connection with these proceedings, the Defendants have ordered my murder by poisoning or arranging an accident or suicide.
4. As you know, in connection with these emails, (1) the London police initiated the criminal investigation, and (2) the Latvian police (which has been investigating the criminal case of death threats made against me and my children since October last year) decided to transfer the investigation to the highest level – to a unit specialising in organized crime and especially serious crimes, including murders.
5. These emails contain the second large part - about TOTAL CORRUPTION ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANTS IN THE ENGLISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE. Here are six of these statements that I will quote as a kind of epigraph (you have seen information about this from the materials of all three cases):
- 22 May – “Information on how law firms planned to defeat justice. Details (emails from Edward Crosse and other partners discussing payments to various people to frustrate the case, texts, audio and video recordings)”.
- 24 May – “I only stumbled on information and evidence about murder plans against you and it is important you have this in your hands. For Ed Crosse, yes, he has been the mastermind of a plan to subjugate the litigation that you have been pursuing. He is paid by Guryev, in a separate financial arrangement from the official legal fees, to pay people to frustrate the litigation, and this is the proof and evidence that I am providing. What I can add is that, yes, this litigation could be related to the murder plans against you”.
- 25 May – “Ed Crosse knows you have a solid case against Guryev, but they are using deliberate tactics to frustrate this case. Ed Crosse is being paid millions to be the devil's advocate and he will do everything to make sure you are defeated and silenced forever”.
- 1 June – “This information will pin everyone involved and make them accountable for their roles in this crime, Ed Crosse included. In fact, there are six people mentioned in relation to your court case in the UK, and eight people in Russia. The evidence against Crosse is watertight because he is caught on record, both audio and video, he signed some documents, he received and distributed payments, he has had communication with Guryev and other people in Russia and the UK, including the people who are surveiling you”.
- 1 June (the second email) – “Crosse's role is to see that the litigation part of your quest against Guryev and PhosAgro is frustrated to the maximum, especially in the UK. He is illegally using the court system to deny you justice. In other words, he is abetting a crime by handling part of the effort to see to it that you fail in your quest”.
- 9 June – “AGAIN, THERE IS RELATED MATERIAL EVIDENCE OF CORRUPTION AND INTERFERENCE IN YOUR COURT MATTER”.
6. I had no illusions that the Defendants would achieve with the help of CORRUPTION precisely the kind of decisions you have made. My confidence was based not only on the information quoted above, but also on other facts that you know, for example, from case CA-2023-000481 (my submission dated 17 February 2023).
7. Based on these facts, I have been talking about total CORRUPTION at the system level on the part of the Defendants for a long time, including in my petition (signed by more than 100,000 people) and video interview aired on 1 March.
8. The fact that it was exactly you who became the Judge who made these decisions, I explain by the fact that the CORRUPTION connection with you had been already established earlier, and therefore it was the easiest option - to follow the well-trodden path. The fact that you have taken on the role of a Judge is another indicator of CORRUPTION, which will be discussed in more detail below.
Several statements for the record
9. First, you have ignored without any explanation two letters of mine (dated 6 February and 21 July 2023), in which I reasonably requested that you specifically not consider the cases listed above. But you did not even transfer case CA-2022-001211-B against two previous decisions made by you, to another Judge. Is there really not at least one more Judge in the entire Court of Appeal[3] to whom you could transfer at least this case, but instead began to consider the complaint against yourself for the third time?!
10. Second, despite my numerous requests and confirmation from the Court dated 19 July that these requests will be considered, you, without any explanation (and even mentioning), refused to stay the proceedings until two criminal cases are investigated (of death threats, as well as information about the ordering my murder by the Defendants in connection with these proceedings and their total CORRUPTION - paragraphs 3-4 above).
11. Third, you have ignored without any explanation (and even mentioning) my numerous and well-reasoned requests to refer all the cases (or the entire case CL-2016-000831) to law enforcement agencies. I explained the need for this (among other things) by the fact that the information about the order to kill me by the Defendants in connection with these proceedings also contains the second part - about their total CORRUPTION IN THE ENGLISH COURTS in order to pervert the course of justice (paragraphs 3-4 above).
12. Fourth, despite my numerous requests and confirmation from the Court dated 19 July that these requests will be considered, you, without any explanation (and even mentioning) refused to hold hearings on each (or at least one) case. I explained the need for this (among other things) by the absolutely extraordinary nature of what is happening in and around these proceedings, as well as by the fact that I am a litigant in person (and a vulnerable litigant in person, since I regularly receive death threats from the Defendants).
Two of the most eloquent examples confirming that your decisions are deliberately illegal (in a demonstrative form)
13. I will not analyze your decisions in detail, but will focus on your two most egregious conclusions, which are at the same time the most important. If I read these phrases not in the decisions of a Judge with as many regalia as you have, but somewhere else (for example, in student papers), then I would simply laugh because of their obvious absurdity.
14. The first example is from case CA-2022-002495, in the decision on which you wrote the following: “Picken J expressly recorded and rejected Mr Sychev’s submission that the defendants had accepted jurisdiction: on the contrary, he held, they had each made a jurisdictional challenge”.
15. I think that any law student knows that a party's acceptance of something by performing specific actions is a legal construction that is used to prove that a party has accepted this something precisely against the background of a formal statement by that party to the contrary. (1) The existence of such actions is a legal basis for dismissing the party's formal statement to the contrary, and (2) the reverse logic, where the formal statement to the contrary supposedly cancels the actual actions by which something has been accepted, is a legal absurdity.
16. I am sure that Mr Justice Bean understands this basic principle fully well. I am also sure that if he were a teacher who heard such a statement from a law student, he would give such a student an unsatisfactory grade. But Mr Justice Bean is not a student or a teacher, but a judge who was considering the very serious and, at the same time, absolutely extraordinary case involving such monstrous things as (1) death threats from the defendants against the plaintiff and his children with a demand to drop exactly this English lawsuit, and (2) information about the order by the defendants to kill the plaintiff precisely in connection with this trial in England (these facts alone are a clear example of the actions by which the Defendants have accepted the jurisdiction; there were many other actions[4]).
17. Moreover, the Defendants themselves refute the strange logic of Mr Justice Bean. I gave information about this in paragraph 52 of the Skeleton: “Now I will give a very colorful example when the Defendants themselves did not agree with the logic of Mr Justice Picken. This story is related to the hearing on 2 December regarding the Claimants’ application for judgment in default against the Second and Third Defendants regarding the Loan Agreements. The First and Fourth Defendants are not parties to this application, but they expressed a desire to participate in the remote hearing as observers. In the email to the Court dated 1 December, the solicitors of the Fourth Defendant wrote the following: “We write further to your email of yesterday and the email sent today by Simmons & Simmons on behalf of the First Defendant confirming that attendance at tomorrow’s hearing by representatives of the First and Fourth Defendants will be as observers. Our client will not be appearing so as to avoid any argument that in doing so it would be submitting to the jurisdiction of the English Court”.
18. Another example demonstrating that the Defendants themselves are well aware that by taking certain actions they can be recognized that they have accepted the jurisdiction is described in paragraph 78 of my skeleton in case CA-2022-002495.
19. Thus, Mr Justice Bean, without explanation and with surprising ease, actually revolutionized the law, abolishing a long-existing legal mechanism, the purpose of which is to prevent a situation where an unfair party, by making a formal bare statement, wants to completely renounce its previous behavior, which this formal statement contradicts.
20. Moreover, if we adhere to the strange logic of Mr Justice Bean, then the legal instrument in question (the acceptance of something by performing certain actions) becomes absolutely unnecessary. After all, if the party does not deny the acceptance of something, then additional references to actions confirming such acceptance are completely unnecessary - why (and where, if there is no dispute) to additionally prove what is already accepted and not being disputed. This legal instrument was invented just and exclusively for such cases when one side denies the acceptance of something, but the other side declares the opposite and refers precisely to the corresponding actions.
21. Such strange actions of Mr Justice Bean are especially dangerous against the background of the fact that the English law is precedential - for the sake to help the Russian oligarchs to stifle the lawsuit against them, Mr Justice Bean has created the precedent that causes big problems for an indefinite circle of bona fide parties.
22. Additionally, in relation to this issue (accepting the jurisdiction, but for other reasons), I will briefly comment on the further phrase of Mr Justice Bean, which also struck me to the core with its obvious absurdity. The phrase is – “Mr Sychev suggests that this was out of time, but it seems common ground that the jurisdictional challenges were filed on 16 April 2021. This is within the extended deadline granted by the order Mr Sychev himself quotes: “The time for the Defendants to file the Jurisdiction Applications shall be extended until 4pm on 16 April 2021”. There is nothing more to this apart from a bare assertion that the defendants filed out of time”.
23. Indeed, the jurisdictional applications were filed by the Defendants on 16 April 2021, but not by 4pm (as was ordered by the Court), but later. Moreover, the Fourth Defendant does not even deny that he filed his application with violation of the deadline. How, under such obvious circumstances, connected not with some complex matters, but with the most elementary (which even a preschooler will understand) - time - it is possible to declare (and - importantly - with the reference to me) that the applications in question were filed on time and that my statements about the opposite, based on the documents (where the time is fixed) and even admitted by one of the Defendants, are “a bare assertion”?!
24. The second example relates to case CA-2022-001211-B, in the decision on which Mr Justice Bean wrote the following:
“This is a second application to re-open a decision refusing permission to appeal. Even those applications under CPR 52.30 made for the first time are only exceptionally granted. In R (Wingfield) v Canterbury CC [2020] EWCA Civ 1588 this court made it clear that a second application faces even greater difficulties. They referred to a judgment of mine in the Divisional Court, Zibala v Latvia [2019] EWHC 816 (Admin), in which I said that “I find it difficult to imagine circumstances in which it would appropriate for a court to allow a second application.” This court in the Nectrus case ([2022] EWCA Civ 949) also emphasised that PTA refusals will only be reopened in exceptional circumstances and that this is even more so when the court is faced with a second such application.
There is nothing in the material submitted by Mr Sychev (including his letter of 1 August 2023) which justifies allowing this second application under CPR 52.30. I certify it as totally without merit. Any further such applications may well result in a civil restraint order”.
25. For the record, I did not send any letters dated 1 August, so I have no idea which letter of mine Mr Justice Bean meant.
26. This case is against the decision of Mr Beltrami KC, by which he refused my application under CPR 39.6 that I, as the sole owner and director of my company (the First Claimant), have the right to represent it at subsequent hearings.
27. In refusing the application, Mr Beltrami KC “forgot” to inform me that he is very, very closely connected with the solicitors of the Defendants (namely, with the firm where Mr Crosse works, who is called the main perpetrator of CORRUPTION offenses on instructions of the Defendants in order to pervert the course of justice in these proceedings). Mr Beltrami KC substantiated his decision by the fact that I make statements about numerous facts of “wrongdoing” by the Defendants and that all my statements without exception may theoretically turn out to be unfounded (Mr Beltrami KC himself did not check a single fact).
28. So, the new circumstances that I referred to in case CA-2022-001211-B and which Mr Justice Bean refused to recognize as exceptional, are, in particular, the following (but not limited to this):
- The subsequent initiation by the Latvian police of a criminal case of death threats made against me, including those accompanied by the Defendants' demands that I drop this lawsuit. When initiating this criminal case, the Latvian police also admitted that in Russia there were repeated attempts to kill me in a publically dangerous way (paragraphs 54-62 of my witness statement in the framework of case CA-2022-001211-B).
- The recent initiation of the criminal investigation in the UK in connection with information about the Defendants' order to kill me in connection with these proceedings and their total CORRUPTION in order to pervert the course of justice in these proceedings.
- Initiation of an investigation by the Legal Ombudsman against the last solicitors of the Claimants with whom I was forced to terminate the contract due to their actions that indicated their collusion with the Defendants. This was the formal reason for submitting the application, which was the subject of consideration by Mr Beltrami KC.
29. Not a single adequate person can fail to see in these circumstances exceptionality and even shocking extraordinariness (as Mr Justice Bean did). I will not give (because of their large number) specific examples of epithets that I receive, for example, from journalists and with which they describe what is happening, but the meaning is the same and very simple and obvious - all this is monstrous and cannot but shock.
30. Not recognizing the exceptional and extraordinary nature of these events can only be demonstrated by a person who has lost touch with reality, or who for some reason (for example, CORRUPTION) is very, very, very interested not to see this (for example, because of the very large size of the bribe).
31. It is important that the desire of Mr Justice Bean not to see the monstrous reality was so high that he did not limit himself to stating that all this wild horror was not something exceptional, but went much further - he came to the conclusion (1) that my words about the exceptional nature of what is happening are totally without merits, and (2) even threatened me with a CRO.
32. At the same time, it simply hurts the eye that Mr Justice Bean did not reproduce in his order the circumstances I referred to (unlike the orders in the other two cases, where he at least partially reproduced my arguments). I am sure that this was done deliberately and for a very simple reason – it is impossible to imagine in one sentence (or in one document) a combination of two phrases: (1) that we are talking about a criminal case on death threats from the defendant to the plaintiff and his children with a demand to drop the lawsuit, as well as a criminal case in connection with the information about the defendants ordering the murder of the plaintiff in connection with this court case, and (2) that these circumstances are not something out of the ordinary. Any reader of such a document would not believe his eyes, especially if such a document is signed by a judge.
33. I am sure that Mr Justice Bean himself (like any other Judge, including an appellate Judge) has never encountered anything like this in his many years of practice.
34. Above, in two or three examples, I demonstrated the monstrous and extremely obvious absurdity of the conclusions of Mr Justice Bean. In this context, I do not like the word "absurd" because it is used quite often and to describe much less strange things. But, unfortunately, I could not think of a more suitable word, so I will give an illustrative example - in the conclusions of Mr Justice Bean, the level of absurdity is approximately the same as in the phrase that elephants belong to the class of small insects.
Developments after the decisions of Mr Justice Bean and the increased risk of my murder
35. After the decisions made by Mr Justice Bean, I again began to receive a huge number of threats (at least 15, the last one was yesterday). In addition to multiple threats, today my WhatsApp account was fatally hacked.
36. It would seem, why would the Defendants threaten me after they obtained decisions with the help of Mr Justice Bean that actually stifled the claim. The answer is contained in the appendix - already mentioned in paragraph 2 above, extracts from my written statement of 30 July in the framework of the criminal case on death threats.
37. In addition to the threats and hacking actions, there were other events that went beyond the threats, but which, in the interests of the investigation, I will not mention.
38. But I will mention one message that I received early in the morning on 20 August, which, among other things, says the following: “Bean has received many millions from Crosse and assurances that his decisions would not cause a scandal or more serious consequences. The reason why you will be silent is your planned staged suicide, which will be explained by the stress after losing the litigation”.
39. Staging my murder looks like a suicide seems like a pretty clever way to kill. The thing is, the Defendants are well aware of how important the stifling the claim is to me, given that the conflict has been going on for more than 9 years, which are simply stolen by the Defendants from my life. Before stealing many years of my life, the Defendants destroyed my previous entire life.
40. The Defendants are well aware, among other things, that as a result of their wild criminal behavior, I was left actually penniless and am forced to save every cent (in the literal sense of the word). I cannot afford basic medical services, and I buy products usually during promotions and the cheapest ones. My "diet" consists of the cheapest pasta and dumplings. I forgot the taste of vegetables and fruits, ice cream, sweets, not to mention the delicacies that you probably consume every day (for example, ham, cheese, fish and so on). It looks especially vile and meanly against the background of the fact that I did nothing wrong to the Defendants, but, on the contrary, brought them huge profits, saved them from bankruptcy and prison. I will quote the words of the First Defendant said on 14 December 2012 – "Sychev was saving us all, we have not been jailed" (paragraphs 7-8 of my letter dated 18 April 2023).
41. Recently, a feature appeared on the Rimi supermarket website that made it much easier for me to find the cheapest food - finding products that are reduced in price due to the approaching expiration date. And now I have the opportunity to not spend a lot of time to find 600-gram bread at a price of 40 cents instead of the standard minimum price of 79 cents. This is the only bread I buy now.
42. There is a veterinary clinic near my place, and I often catch myself thinking that pet owners who visit this clinic spend, most likely, more on their pets, than I can spend on myself.
43. Of course, in such conditions it would not be surprising to commit suicide.
44. But I want to state that I do not plan to commit suicide, and if I suddenly take such a step, I will do it the way the Russian journalist Irina Slavina did in protest against lawlessness against her, the level of which (lawlessness) is an order of magnitude lower compared to my story. She set herself on fire outside the police building, having stated in advance the reasons for this act. Generally speaking, this is called incitement to suicide, which is a crime.
45. If I decide to take such a step, I will do it near the building of the Court of Appeal and explain in advance that I was brought to this radical step by Mr Justice Bean, for describing the transcendental level of absurdity of whose decisions it is difficult to find adequate words.
Final remark
46. In order to reduce the risk of my murder, I will make this letter public.
Igor Sychev
(as a litigant in person on behalf of both Claimants in case CL-2016-000831)
ANNEX
30 July 2023
Criminal case 11087073322
<…>
VICTIM’S STATEMENT
(excerpts)
<…>
Part 9 (CORRUPTION as a factor that increases the risk of my murder)
41. I will comment separately on the situation with CORRUPTION, since during my interrogation on 28 July, the police officers made suggestions related to corruption. The point was as follows – if PhosAgro’s shareholders can achieve non-fulfillment of obligations to me with the help of CORRUPTION IN THE ENGLISH COURTS, then why would they kill me?
42. During the interrogation, I once again confirmed that this is exactly what they are doing (CORRUPTION), and reminded the investigators about the second part of the emails from “James Durand”, which devotes specifically to CORRUPTION. But I did not say the most important thing.
43. The most important thing is that the use of CORRUPTION, on the contrary, only increases the risk that PhosAgro's shareholders can decide to kill me. Although this statement may seem paradoxical at first glance, in fact, the logic here is very simple – "solving problems" with the help of CORRUPTION carries huge risks, it's like a time bomb that can explode at any moment and completely unexpectedly. CORRUPTION can come to light (on my application or for other reasons related, for example, to the fact that my story attracts the attention of mass media), and then big problems will arise not only for PhosAgro’s shareholders (who give bribes), but also for those who take these bribes (for example, judges).
44. That is, in the short term, CORRUPTION can produce results, but it is impossible to predict how events will develop in the medium and long-term perspective (especially against the background of the fact that I actively raise questions about CORRUPTION, including publicly). These unpredictable risks can be eliminated by killing me, in which, by the way, there are more and more interested parties - in particular, I mean those who participate in the corrupt activities of PhosAgro's shareholders (for example, judges and the above-mentioned British lawyer Edward Crosse, who is called in the emails from “James Durand" as the main perpetrator of CORRUPTION crimes and even twice directly named as interested in my murder[1]).
45. A good example that demonstrates how CORRUPTION can produce needed results in the short term, but in the medium and long-term perspective, for completely unpredictable reasons, can become a huge headache for a large number of people involved in corruption, is the story of the fabricated Russian criminal case against me. Moreover, even in this example, the short-term results were falsely perceived by the Defendants as good ones.
46. This criminal case was made so carelessly and comically for one simple reason – everyone was sure that by withdrawing my passport from me (and thereby taking me hostage), the result in the form of my consent to a 5-fold reduction in the amount of PhosAgro's obligations to me and a $4 million bribe to investigators would be fast and 100%. But an absolutely unforeseen event intervened – a few weeks before the search, I issued a second passport, which was in the English consulate during the search (I handed it over for a visa), and the investigators, who were not used to the fact that a person can have two passports, simply did not check the information about the number of passports and were extremely satisfied by the fact that they found one passport.
47. As a result, instead of existing for a couple of months and being quickly "utilized", this comical criminal case has been "living" for the ninth year, and I am actively defending myself and sticking out all the inadequacies of this criminal case. And all those Russian investigators, prosecutors and judges who participated and are participating in this tragicomedy have now become hostages, depending on how long the criminal Putin regime will last, which (and only which) currently provides immunity from responsibility to all those involved in this large-scale criminal activity. But if this regime falls (I hope it will happen sooner or later), then all the accomplices of this large-scale crime (fabrication of the criminal case) risk being in the dock.
48. The same fate can await those who are behind the focus in the form of the disappearance of the Russian criminal case of attempts to kill me (described above).
49. Speaking in a broader context, I think that sooner or later a large-scale criminal activity of PhosAgro’s shareholders, as a result of which, instead of becoming a victim in a criminal case of repeated attempts on my life in a generally dangerous way (for which responsibility is provided up to life imprisonment), I became an accused in the completely ridiculous fabricated criminal case, will also receive a proper assessment in Russia.
50. That is why the use of CORRUPTION by PhosAgro’s shareholders does not reduce the risk of my murder, but rather increases it, as the number of people involved in their criminal activities, who are at risk of being exposed, becomes more and more with each new act of CORRUPTION.
<…>
Victim Igor Sychev
[1] Since this reduces the risk of exposing his criminal corruption activities.
POSTSCRIPT
The next day, 24 August, I received an email from the Court of Appeal in which a completely different person (not Mr Justice Bean, but Master Bancroft-Rimmer) commented on the most minor and insignificant part of my letter - namely, three of my four statements made just for the record (paragraphs 9-12). Other and much more important parts of the letter were not commented. The email writer tried to explain that Mr Justice Bean theoretically had the right not to hold hearings and such. But the same email has also confirmed:
- That oral hearings (for which I asked) could be scheduled, but Mr Justice Bean didn't see it necessary (reasons are not indicated). If I were a judge, faced with such a shockingly extraordinary story, purely out of curiosity, I would schedule a hearing to learn more about it. It is also difficult for me to imagine an uninterested judge who, in such a situation, would not show similar curiosity.
- That Mr Justice Bean could refuse to be a judge (I asked that any other judge consider all cases), but he did not do this (the reasons for this are not specified).
- That Mr Justice Bean could make a decision to stay the proceedings until the completion of the investigation of criminal cases about threats to kill me from the defendants in connection with these proceedings, as well as their ordering my murder and total corruption in the British courts. But Mr Justice Bean did not do this, believing that this would lead to a delay in his consideration of the case, and made the decision, which is equivalent to what the defendants demanded from me under death threats.
The last comment especially struck me against the background of the fact that there was no rush in the proceedings and the defendants did not demand (at least, officially) to speed up them. In addition, the cases that were before Mr Justice Bean were already quite “old” - they are at least six months old. But for some (non-indicated) reasons Mr Justice Bean decided on 11 August that in the interests of justice (in order to stifle the lawsuit against the Russian oligarchs) it would be better not to know the outcome of the investigation into their death threats against me with demands to drop the lawsuit and their total corruption. In the interests of whom it is better not to know this, it is not difficult to guess - the Russian oligarchs, who - I repeat once again - officially did not ask the Court of Appeal to speed up the proceedings.
SHORTLY AFTER THIS EMAIL FROM THE COURT, I RECEIVED ANOTHER THREATENING EMAIL - IN THIS CASE, THE THREATS MENTIONED MY CHILDREN.