Dear Supporters
The update of 26 August contained the text of my official open letter to the judge of the Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Bean. Last week I received an official notification from the court that it refuses without any reasonable explanation to accept this letter I sent through a special form on the court website (case CA-2022-001211-B).
As a continuation of that update, I am posting for everyone to see the text of my application in the framework of this case (CA-2022-001211-B), which was being considered by Lord Justice Bean. This application is a complaint against previous decisions of the same Lord Justice Bean and I have requested that this complaint be considered by another judge. However, this complaint fell into the hands of the same judge, and he did not transfer it to another judge (although he could do this) and began to consider the complaint against himself.
The essence of the complaint is as follows. In previous decisions, Lord Justice Bean prohibited me from representing the plaintiffs at the hearings, citing the fact that I was making allegations of “wrongdoing” by Russian oligarch (defendants) and suggesting that all my statements could theoretically turn out to be unfounded (not a single such statement was considered on the merits by Lord Justice Bean, who simply assumed that all of them, without exception, may be unfounded).
In a very laconic decision dated 11 August, Lord Justice Bean wrote that the new circumstances described in my complaint about the “wrongdoing” of the Russian oligarchs, shocking any person, are totally without merits. Moreover, Lord Justice Bean wrote that if I would repeat my arguments, a civil restraint order will be issued against me.
It hurts the eyes that Lord Justice Bean did not, in his super concise decision, even briefly name the circumstances to which I referred and which are allegedly totally without merits.
As anyone can now see, these circumstances were the following:
- Initiation, after the previous decisions of Lord Justice Bean, of a criminal investigation in England in connection with information about ordering my assassination by the Russian oligarchs (Defendants) in connection with these proceedings. The same information contains the second important part - about the total corruption by these oligarchs in the British courts in order to pervert the course of justice. Paragraphs G to T.
- The initiation, after the previous decisions of Lord Justice Bean, of a criminal case in Latvia on the facts of numerous death threats made against me with demands to drop the lawsuit. Paragraphs 43-53.
- Confirmation by the Latvian police of the facts of attempts to kill me in a publically dangerous way. Paragraphs 54-62.
- The initiation, after all previous court decisions, of an investigation by the competent authority against my last lawyers, whose strange actions led me to suspect that they had colluded with the oligarchs. Paragraphs 21-42.
- Public information about the "wrongdoing" of these oligarchs. For example, death threats against another person in connection with another lawsuit. Paragraphs 77-81.
I excluded from the text only a small part that concerns the facts of "wrongdoing" in relation to one more person (paragraph 71). Believe me, these facts are no less shocking and are connected with such an oligarch from PhosAgro, about whom the Ukrainian authorities wrote the following to justify the sanctions: “Vladimir Litvinenko owns about 21% of Russian chemical company PhosAgro listed in London. Since 1994, Litvinenko has been the rector of Saint Petersburg Mining University, where he mentored Vladimir Putin. The allotment of PhosAgro shares to Litvinenko is widely seen AS A BRIBE TO PUTIN”.
I believe that the decision of Lord Justice Bean of 11 August is knowingly illegal and that it is the result of the activities of Russian oligarchs aimed at perverting the course of justice (see above). I cannot explain otherwise that the initiation of a number of investigations after the previous decisions of Lord Justice Bean is, in his opinion, totally without merits in the context that absolutely all my statements about the “wrongdoing” of Putin’s oligarchs may theoretically turn out to be unfounded. Initiating investigations, the competent authorities have become convinced that there were more than good reasons for this.
Many thanks for your support!
Igor Sychev
Since the text of the application is long, I will publish it in several parts, today – part 4. The full text is available here. Parts 1, 2 and 3 are here, here and here.
______________________________________________
My application in case CA-2022-001211-B (part 4)
Other important and relevant circumstances
67. Since after filing my witness statement in the original version (19 March) there was quite a lot of correspondence, for convenience I included some of the most important letters in the Exhibit, and below I will quote the most relevant and important fragments.
68. In addition, I will give relevant information that I have only recently become aware of.
The first circumstance
69. First, I would like to draw attention to my letter of 21 April (IS(A)2/365-372), from which I will quote paragraphs 31-33:
(31) The Defendants' arguments in their letters about the refusal to negotiate dated 13 and 19 April boil down to denigrating me, and the most important basis for this is the decision of Mr Beltrami KC, which became fateful (crucial) for these proceedings, and my application under CPR 52.30 against which the Court of Appeal is currently considering in the framework of case CA-2022-001211-B.
(32) In this regard, I will simply remind you that Mr Beltrami KC effectively closed the Claimants' access to justice on the premise that all the horror described above may theoretically turn out to be unconfirmed. In fact, Mr Beltrami KC accused me of reporting this shocking behavior of the Defendants, and decided that I can only report it through the filter of lawyers (knowing that I simply do not have money to pay for lawyers’ services, as well as other circumstances that make it impossible to involve lawyers).
(33) At the same time, as can be seen from the above, my accusations against the Defendants about their shocking behavior are supported by (1) evidence in the form of the audio recordings, (2) the emails from my former lawyer, Mr Dergachev, (3) the witness statement of my other lawyer, Mr Stepanov. In addition, by (4) the Latvian authorities, who granted me refugee status on the basis of these very events, and (5) Interpol, which for the same reasons stopped my international search, agreeing that the criminal case against me was fabricated and pursues other goals (not related to justice). In other words, my statements about the shocking behavior of the Defendants passed a multi-step filter not only in the form of lawyers, but also in the form of government agencies.
The second circumstance
70. Second, I would like to draw attention to my letter of 28 April (IS(A)2/373-377), from which I will quote paragraphs 21-22:
(21) Separately (especially for case CA-2022-001211-B, which is the base case for the other two cases) I would like to add the following. Mr Beltrami KC wrote in his decision that I can only report wrongdoing and criminality on the part of Defendants through the filter of lawyers (for whose services I do not have money). But before Mr Beltrami KC <…> there was the witness statement of my former Russian lawyer, Mr Stepanov, whose legal experience is approximately 50 years. And this witness statement contains information about (1) attempts to kill me; (2) death threats against me, accompanied by demands to drop the lawsuit (extortion); (3) the Defendants' fabrication of a criminal case against me in Russia, and so on.
(22) It is completely incomprehensible to me (1) why this witness statement cannot be considered as the "filter" mentioned by Mr Beltrami KC, and (2) why Mr Beltrami KC <…> did not mention Mr Stepanov's witness statement at all, which I referred to.
The third circumstance
71. <excluded>
72. Why do I want to highlight this story especially? Perhaps the story of my relationship with the Defendants (which journalists and others describe only as shocking) seemed implausible to Mr Beltrami KC because of the scale and nature of "wrongdoing" (to put it mildly) on the part of the Defendants, and therefore he decided that I have the right to talk about this “wrongdoing” only through a filter in the form of lawyers.
73. But Olga Litvinenko's story, connected with the same people has been public for many years - at least since 2014, when I first saw the detailed article published in Russia (at that time there were still small remnants of freedom of the press in Russia), which described the shocking details of the story of both Olga Litvinenko herself (who is considered by Russian authorities to have been abducted) and her associates and friends, who were all jailed without exception in the framework of criminal cases fabricated by order of PhosAgro shareholders.
74. If we talk about recent publications, it is enough to mention an article in The Times, one title of which is already shocking – "They kidnapped my daughter" (IS(A)2/388-399).
75. Olga Litvinenko has repeatedly called for PhosAgro shareholders (including the First and Fifth Defendants) to be included in the Magnitsky sanctions list for their involvement in egregious human rights violations, both publicly in the press and in official meetings with authorities in various countries. I will quote some excerpts from her interviews of 2018-2019:
(1) "If Vladimir Litvinenko and his partners in PhosAgro, whose shares are freely listed on the London Stock Exchange, are included in the Magnitsky list, the possibility of their influence on the legal and public systems of those EU countries that adopt the relevant acts will be partially prevented. We are talking about Vladimir Litvinenko, Andrey Guryev [the Fifth Defendant] and Igor Antoshin [the First Defendant], who can be described as Putin's "wallets" and pillars of today's Kremlin regime. And this is not some emotion, but a legal opinion prepared by an international group of lawyers” (the article of 12 October 2019- IS(A)2/400-407).
(2) "Vladimir Litvinenko is a dollar billionaire who owns shares in PhosAgro, and Olga Litvinenko is seeking the inclusion of her father and his business partners Andrey Guryev and Igor Antoshin in the sanctions lists. This is one of the issues raised at the meeting between Olga Litvinenko and Estonian parliamentarians. "I discussed the inclusion in the sanctions lists of co-owners of PhosAgro, whom I call "Putin's shadow cashiers". I have already spoken about this in the Lithuanian Parliament and am now preparing a legal opinion for the working group on including the above-mentioned individuals in the sanctions list. Guryev is already on the so-called "Kremlin list" (the article of 7 March 2018 - IS(A)2/408-412).
76. I think that the Court of Appeal will agree that public and official calls to include in the "Magnitsky list" are made in relation to a very small number of people, but it happened exactly in relation to PhosAgro's shareholders and, in particular, the First and Fifth Defendants. Against this background, my words about “wrongdoing” (attempts to kill, death threats, fabrication of the criminal case, and so on) no longer look so shockingly implausible.
The fourth circumstance
77. Moreover, I found another story in open sources when PhosAgro (the Fourth Defendant) threatened to kill one more person (Ben Worsley) involved in the trial (IS(A)2/413-415): https://benworsley.substack.com/p/phosagro-guryev-death-threats-and In particular, he has written:
“FACT: During the ensuing tussle, the White Shoe lawyer told me that I might be “physically intimidated” by Phosagro, who had their eyes on the assets over which I had signature.
FACT: After the news from the lawyer that I might get it in the head from Phosagro and its owners Guryev and Vladimir Litvinenko, Otkritie Bank paid for security at the house I used to own in Europe.
FACT: I lived in fear of my life. Maybe it was all a set up and I was never at risk. Or maybe I was at risk and that’s why Otkritie Bank paid for the security doors and escape ladders that I had installed in my home”.
78. I checked with other sources and made sure that Ben Worsley was indeed involved in the English litigation, connected with PhosAgro.
79. I also informed the Latvian police about this story on 11 November 2022.
80. Thus, it can already be said that the tendency of the Defendants to various kinds of “wrongdoing” is already a well-known fact. Against this background, forbidding me to tell the truth about the “wrongdoing” committed by the Defendants against me, without a filter in the form of lawyers (as Mr Beltrami KC did) is an extremely excessive and monstrously unfair measure. Especially when the facts of “wrongdoing” committed against me are confirmed by numerous proofs.
81. Finally, I will quote the last paragraph (31) of my letter of 21 April: “As a final remark, I want to comment on the words from the Defendants' letters that I am allegedly scandalizing the situation. In fact, I am just reporting the reality (which is supported by evidence), and the blame for the fact that this reality is not only scandalous, but literally shocking, lies solely with the Defendants themselves”.
To be continued, tomorrow I will publish Section “Conclusions”.