Dear Supporters
This update is a continuation of a series of updates started on 26 August. After publishing the last part, I took a break because I received an email from a user with the ominous nickname “funer666”. The text of the email is: “stop posting about crosse and bean”, and the title is formulated as follows: “03/09/1975 - 09/??/2023”. The first date is the date of my birth, and the second date is, apparently, the date of my death (it is this September, but the specific date is not indicated, instead there are two question marks).
Although I received a huge number of threats, including very ominous ones, this email scared me very much and I thought about whether, in this case, it would be better to fulfil the demand that I stop making updates about Lord Justice Bean and Edward Crosse of Simmons & Simmons.
But after reflection, I decided that I would continue this series of updates, since only publicity can stop PhosAgro shareholders and other interested persons from killing me. Moreover, taking into account that only the “Conclusions” section of my complaint against Lord Justice Bean remained unpublished, which (complaint) he began to consider himself, ignoring my request to transfer the case to another judge.
So, part 5 of the complaint. The full text is available here. Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4 are here, here, here and here.
Preamble
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
______________________________________________
My application in case CA-2022-001211-B (part 5)
Section “Conclusions”
82. I am sure that these newly emerged circumstances are already sufficient grounds for reviewing the fateful decisions of Mr Beltrami KC and Lord Justice Bean, as well as all subsequent decisions that were made with references to them. Or at least the issue of review should be made dependent on the results of the investigations of the criminal cases initiated by the London Police (on 9 June) and Latvian Police (on 3 October 2022) and the British investigation into Candey story (at the same time, I believe that waiting for the results of the investigations is clearly unnecessary, since the very fact of initiating these investigations fully exonerates me of those accusations made against me by Mr Beltrami KC and Lord Justice Bean without their verification on the merits).
83. I have demonstrated above and in my first witness statement that the new circumstances confirm, that the Judgment of Mr Beltrami KC and Orders of Lord Justice Bean are wrong and all the conditions provided by CPR 52.30(1) for reopening the Application for permission to appeal are met (my first witness statement under CPR 52.30).
84. Moreover, I am sure that if the circumstances described above had happened before the decision by Mr Beltrami KC, then his decision would have been different (exactly the opposite). I cannot imagine how it would be possible to refuse the Representation Application against the background of the fact that an investigation has been initiated against the last solicitors of the Claimants on my application, in which I directly accuse them of collusion with the Defendants. After all, this story has been exactly the reason why I was forced to submit the Representation Application.
85. It is also difficult for me to imagine the refusal to grant this application against the background of stated in paragraphs A to T above and the criminal case on multiple death threats, which were accompanied by demands for me to drop this lawsuit or assign the Claimants’ rights to persons associated with the Defendants.
86. It is not unknown that I declare the bias of Mr Beltrami KC (section E of my first witness statement), but I think that under the conditions described, even his bias would hardly outweigh the monstrously shocking things in question (death threats and collusion of the Defendants with the Claimants' solicitors).
87. Separately and especially, I want to emphasize that at the time of consideration of the Representation Application by Mr Beltrami KC, my applications to the London Police and the Legal Ombudsman, on the basis of which decisions were made to initiate relevant investigations, had already been submitted. Moreover, they were filed long before that, namely in October 2021 (the hearing on the Representation Application took place on 27 May 2022, that is, 7-8 months after my applications were submitted).
88. Also, separately and especially, I want to emphasize that the fact that it took such a long time for the competent authorities to initiate investigations has nothing to do with me. If we talk about the police, I, for my part, took all necessary actions to speed up the process, but it took several months only to consider the question of the correct jurisdiction for initiating a criminal case. As for the Legal Ombudsman, such a long period is due to the specifics of this body, which once every three months, with apologies, notified me that the time for considering my complaint has not yet come.
89. As regards the third circumstance (the expert opinion of Professor Lukyanova), then in addition to what I wrote about this above, I want to add the following. Before signing the contract with my last solicitors and in the first days after it, the solicitors themselves notified me that, given that the Defendants had submitted five expert opinions, it was necessary for us to submit expert opinions in response. The solicitors stated that they would organize work with experts and pay for their services. But soon (I need to remind you that our contract lasted only one month) the position of my solicitors changed dramatically and they began to demand that our entire response to the Defendants' applications, supported by five expert opinions, would be set out on 3-5 pages consisting of headings and hints, and would not contain any evidence at all. That is, if it were not for the collusion of the Defendants with Candey, then the expert opinions from the Claimants would have been presented much earlier and in a significantly larger number.
90. As for the condition referred to in CPR 52.30(1)(c) (“there is no alternative effective remedy”), in addition to what is stated in my first witness statement under CPR 52.30 dated 31 August 2022 on this issue, I want to add the following. The further development of events clearly and additionally proved this, since all further Court decisions that I challenge in the framework of cases CA-2022-002495 and CA-2023-000481 are based precisely on the decision of Mr Beltrami KC.
91. Therefore, I kindly request that (1) permission to reopen the application for permission to appeal be granted, (2) the Judgment of Mr Beltrami KC and the Orders of Lord Justice Bean be set aside and that the Representation Application be granted.
Additional conclusions
92. In order not to violate the numbering of paragraphs, the conclusions drawn before the last updates are contained in paragraphs 82-91 above. Below will be additional conclusions arising from the updates. Before that, I want to note that information about “wrongdoing” by the Defendants is also public and I do not even mean my story, but the shocking stories of <...> (paragraphs 71-76 above) and Ben Worsley (paragraphs 77-81 above). In both cases, it is about criminal “wrongdoing” and no attempts were made to refute or remove this public information by the Defendants or other persons. I think the public nature of information about the Defendants' "wrongdoing" is a very eloquent "filter" (in the wording of Mr Beltrami KC).
93. The situation around these proceedings is so monstrous and extraordinary that I am absolutely sure that the British courts have never encountered anything like this. This situation requires a special approach on the part of the Court of Appeal, and the most obvious measure is referring this case (I mean case CL-2016-000831) to law enforcement agencies (in particular, to the National Crime Agency, where I may not directly apply due to procedural features).
94. Taking into account the monstrously shocking circumstances of the case, this case is no longer intended for consideration in the framework of civil proceedings, since the facts of death threats alone (I do not even talk about ordering my murder) dot the “i” both in the essence of the dispute and in the issue of jurisdiction. No adequate defendant will threaten a plaintiff with murder if the claim is wrong and/or filed in the "wrong" jurisdiction. Within the framework of civil proceedings, this case deserves only a summary judgment due to the obviousness of the situation (I have not yet met a single person who would not understand something about the essence of the conflict). But this case and the history of my relationship with the Defendants (in a broader sense) open up a lot of scope for the work of law enforcement agencies.
95. Above I mentioned the need to refer this case to the NCA. I already wrote about this, in particular, in paragraphs 14-17 of the letter of 25 May, which I will quote:
(14) I am talking about the need to take very urgent measures, since the correspondence directly states that in connection with the order for my murder (connected with these proceedings), I have very little time. That is, now it is actually a matter of life and death.
(15) I have to remind you that in Russia they have repeatedly tried to kill me, which was repeatedly covered by the press, including the British one. Speaking of my submissions, I will refer to paragraphs 54-62 of my witness statement in case CA-2022-001211-B.
(16) I am writing this letter on an urgent basis and perhaps it should have been more detailed. But considering that my interlocutor declares that I could be killed by the Defendants in the very near future, I have prioritized urgency to the detriment of detail. I will try to supplement the letter (if I will be still alive).
(17) I have repeatedly written and said before that probably in the practice of English courts there have never been cases in which the defendant would have threatened the plaintiff with murder, and therefore this case is unique. Given recent events, this case has become shockingly extraordinary and therefore requires URGENT measures from the Courts which are adequate to this.
96. I believe that in these extraordinary circumstances, these proceedings should be suspended (stayed).
97. In addition, I think that in this case there is every reason to raise the question of perverting the course of justice. In my previous submissions (in particular, as part of the hearing held by Mr Justice Foxton, the results of which are being appealed in the framework of case CA-2023-000481), I have already spoken out on this topic. I will quote:
(1) I did not have time to delve deeply into the essence of this legal concept, but only got acquainted superficially, for example, using Wikipedia, where this term is defined as follows: “Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on themselves or on another party. In England and Wales it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment”.
(2) It also lists the signs of perverting:
“Doing an act tending and intending to pervert the course of public justice is an offence under the common law of England and Wales.
Perverting the course of justice can be any of three acts:
Fabricating or disposing of evidence
Intimidating or threatening a witness or juror
Intimidating or threatening a judge
Also criminal are:
conspiring with another to pervert the course of justice, and
intending to pervert the course of justice”.
(3) What I have underlined takes place in these proceedings. There is both forged evidence[40] and repeated threats against me. Surely there is also conspiracy. If what is written in Wikipedia is correct, then in this case we can confidently say that there is a perverting of the course of justice.
98. Moreover, in this case, taking into account the latest development of events, it is not only about death threats, but about the possible order by the Defendants to kill the plaintiff.
99. In addition, I would like to reiterate that the information mentioned in paragraphs A to T above repeatedly refer to the Defendants' corrupt activities through solicitor Edward Crosse in order to stifle the lawsuit. If this is so, then the question that these proceedings are corrupt becomes relevant.
100. In my applications to the Court of Appeal in this case (CA-2022-001211-B), and in cases CA-2022-002495 and CA-2023-000481 now pending, I did not raise the issue of possible unfairness of the High Court. However, these proceedings in the High Court were going with a lot of strange things, which, due to the relevance of this aspect, I listed in my submission before Mr Justice Foxton (case CA-2023-000481). I mean paragraphs 16-64 of my submission dated 17 February (IS(A)2/419-430), where I listed the strange circumstances in detail. For example, this case was classified (allegedly by mistake) on the website of the High Court and many other circumstances which can make one think that the Defendants really did have an illegal influence on the High Court.
101. At the same time, some strange circumstances are directly related to Mr Crosse and Simmons & Simmons. I mean, it was with this firm that deputy judge Mr Beltrami KC turned out to be very closely connected, whose decision turned out to be fateful for the entire further course of these proceedings, since he essentially stifled the lawsuit. This decision is the subject of this case (CA-2022-001211-B).
102. I also believe that taking into account very recent events (paragraphs A to T), the activities of Mr Crosse should be thoroughly investigated by the competent authorities. Especially in this regard, I ask you to pay attention to paragraphs J and K above (about the possibility that these proceedings can be corrupted).
103. I also want to repeat that Mr Beltrami KC did not take into account that I am a vulnerable party and did not take any action in this regard (more on this in paragraphs B to F above). Moreover, all those terrible and shocking circumstances that made me vulnerable were used by Mr Beltrami KC against me, the victim of these circumstances. After hearing and reading about very unusual things like death threats, the Judge, instead of taking extra time to look into this unusual and rare issue in more detail, did not want to study this issue and used the fact that I was talking about death threats, against me myself.
Statement of Truth
104. I believe that the facts stated in this witness statement are true. I understand that proceedings for contempt of Court may be brought against anyone who makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.
Signed .................................................
Igor Sychev
[40] Mr Justice Foxton has decided to stay my application for contempt of court related to the Defendants' use of a forged document, citing that at this stage he cannot rule on this issue, as it requires more time.