Dear Supporters 

Today I want to sum up the series of recent updates, started on 26 August and dedicated to the shocking behavior of Putin’s oligarchs, my words about which (behavior) the judge of The Court of Appeal, Lord Justice Bean, has named "totally without merit".

To begin with I'll just quote fifteen messages from specific people (primarily journalists) about how they see this story. I heard (more precisely, read) much more such characteristics than 15 (I quote the first ones that came to hand). It is important that the people whose words I will quote had much less information and evidence compared to Lord Justice Bean (see the last five updates with the full text of the document that was before Lord Justice Bean).

• You surely have a very interesting story! What a life you've had so far! <…> Your story is very unusual indeed.
• That is a wild and scary story. 
• Really scary! Stay safe.
• I fully appreciate that this must be an extremely difficult time and I do hope that you are well in such awful circumstances.
• This all sounds awful and I am glad that you are okay.
• I am sorry for what you experienced.
• I am sorry to hear about your extremely torrid experiences. I have had a couple of run-ins with oligarchs, nothing like yours, but nevertheless very unpleasant!
• Thanks for sharing these horrible facts from your biography.
• It sounds like you've had an appalling experience.
• I am not sure what to say. This is shocking. I am so sorry it’s happening to you and your family. What I do know is that the U.K. legal system is corrupt and it is aided by corrupt lawyers and solicitors. We have experienced this but not on any level like you have, but I definitely believe this goes on. Do you have any protection?
• This story sounds fascinating and important.
• I feel sorry for all you have been experienced.
• What a story! 
• What a terrible story!
• It's pathetic, I pray and wish you a happy and good future.
   

A logical question arises: (1) why Lord Justice Bean considered all this horror, shocking for any normal person, totally without merit and (2) why Lord Justice Bean, in his super-laconic decision (that this is all totally without merit), did not call (at least very briefly) by its proper name what he considered “totally without merit”.

The answer to the second question is obvious - it is impossible to imagine in one text words about attempted murders, death threats against me and my children, ordering my murder by poisoning and the conclusion that these are not only not shocking things, but things that are “totally without merit”.

But I have to thank Lord Justice Bean – at least, he did not call death threats "fine", as did his colleague from the lower court, Mr Justice Picken. More details on this are the update of 13 May. 

I will quote:

Me: I can stress again and again and again that the defendants made death threats towards me, they wanted me to take the claim back.

MR. JUSTICE PICKEN:  All right, that is fine. I have read all that. I know that is what you say, Mr. Sychev.  I have really read it many, many times. That is fine." 

Let me remind you (for more details, see the update of 26 August with the open letter to Lord Justice Bean), that Lord Justice Bean, in order to acquit his lower-ranking colleague (who believes that death threats are fine) committed a revolution in the law. Here's what I wrote to Lord Justice Bean:

14. 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 Lord 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 Lord 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 Lord 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, Lord 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 Lord 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 Lord Justice Bean are especially dangerous against the background of the fact that English law is precedential - for the sake of helping the Russian oligarchs to stifle the lawsuit against them, Lord Justice Bean has created the precedent that causes big problems for an indefinite circle of bona fide parties.  

In conclusion, I will repeat the main point from my open letter to Lord Justice Bean (some paragraphs will be quoted below):

1. I am writing this letter to inform you that I consider your decisions of 11 August 2023 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.

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. 

I HAVE NOTHING MORE TO ADD.

Kind regards, 

Igor Sychev