Dear Supporters

All updates starting from 26 August are dedicated to Lord Justice Bean and his August decisions in favor of the super-rich Putin’s cronies - PhosAgro and its main owners, who fell under sanctions from the entire civilized world.

These updates (started on 26 August) consisted of two parts. I devoted the first part to the decision of Lord Justice Bean, by which he recognized the shocking (for any person) truth about the criminal activities of these oligarchs “totally without merit”. It was about (1) three attempts to kill me in a generally dangerous way; (2) numerous death threats with demands to drop the lawsuit against them and (3) the latest information about their ordering my murder in connection with this lawsuit by poisoning.

In connection with these events, criminal cases were initiated in two countries (the UK and Latvia), in which I was recognized as a victim, but Lord Justice Bean called my words that I was officially recognized as a victim, “totally without merit.”

In addition to the fact that there are two criminal cases, information about attempts to kill me, threats to kill me and ordering my murder has attracted the attention of the press and has been repeatedly described in the media. The last two articles were published last Sunday (here and here), and each of these and the previous articles is a result of journalistic investigations, during which numerous journalists were studying evidence (audio recordings, emails, etc.).

The second part of the updates was dedicated to the grandiose revolution in law carried out by Lord Justice Bean in the interests of Putin’s super-rich oligarchs.

I wanted to finish publishing updates about the extremely strange decisions of Lord Justice Bean, but the scale of lawlessness on his part is so great and so demonstrative that I decided to continue the series of publications.

As mentioned above, Lord Justice Bean forbade me from telling the court the truth about the crimes of the oligarchs. But that's not all - Lord Justice Bean showed incredible favor to the words of these oligarchs and allowed them to lie in the most primitive way.

Below is the relevant section of my submission, which was the subject of consideration by Lord Justice Bean, and he concluded that Putin's oligarchs (through their British lawyers) have every right to lie in the most primitive way.

Today's example is related to the following. Before I filed the lawsuit, PhosAgro and its owners made a dozen official statements that my official duties never included participation in litigation in their defence. When it came to the trial in England, their position changed to exactly the opposite - that participation in such trials was always part of my job responsibilities. And the British lawyers of these oligarchs, namely Mr Riem, a partner of the respectable British firm PCB Byrne, told the court in writing that there is NOT THE SMALLEST CONTRADICTION between the previous and new positions.

For any person with at least a level of intelligence at which doctors have not diagnosed him with “clinical dementia,” it is extremely obvious that the contradictions are cardinal - it’s like the same thing if we say that there are no differences between black and white. But Lord Justice Bean came to the conclusion that Putin's oligarchs are allowed to lie in such a primitive way.

I will repeat once again. I, who became a beggar due to the actions of the oligarchs, was forbidden by Lord Justice Bean to report the truth, confirmed by irrefutable evidence (including journalistic investigations), but allowed these oligarchs to lie in the most primitive and ridiculous way.

I feel Spanish shame (being ashamed of other people's actions) for such justice, especially when it is about British justice, which has an impeccable reputation. Unfortunately, the bitter truth turned out to be that for the sake of Putin's oligarchs, the British courts are ready to destroy their reputation.

After this example, related to Mr Riem of PCB Byrne I will describe the example connected with another oligarchs' lawyer, Edward Crosse of Simmons & Simmons, who is mentioned in the emails about ordering my murder as the main perpetrator of Putin's oligarchs' corruption crimes in the British courts.

_____________________________________________________ 

1. The application against Mr Riem was filed due to the fact that in his WS about security for costs (SFC) he wrote that there are no contradictions between the following statements of his client:

       PhosAgro’s position stated in 2021 in these proceedings:

Conducting the litigation has been a part of my [Sychev’s] job responsibilities.

       PhosAgro’s position in 2015-2020:

(1) 2020: “From the explanation of the General Director of PhosAgro PJSC Guriev A.A. it follows that before February 2013 Sychev I.A. carried out labor activity in LLC RBC "PhosAgro" as the head of the taxation department. Friendly or comradely relations with Sychev I.A. Guryev A.A. did not support, has no reasons for personal hostility. The protection of the interests of the enterprises of the PhosAgro group in the Arbitration courts has never been and could not be included in the area of ​​responsibility of the headed by Sychev Department of Taxation of LLC RBC "PphosAgro". This aspect of activity, due to the structural and functional characteristics of enterprises, the management and parent companies, has always been attributed to the area of ​​responsibility of legal departments".

(2) 2015: “Disputing tax claims, involving judicial procedures, is the prerogative of the legal divisions of Apatit JSC and did not imply the conclusion of individual contracts, agreements, signing acts, payment documents with I.A. Sychev, who had no legal education”.

(3) 2015: “Sychev probably forgot that the responsibility for challenging the claims of the tax authorities lay not on Sychev or even LLC "RBC PhosAgro", but on the legal department of CJSC "PhosAgro AG”.

2. In paragraph 61 of my Skeleton for the hearing I wrote the following in this regard: “It is obvious to any person (not even a lawyer and even those of less than average intelligence) that these statements are opposite in meaning, but Mr Riem insists that they are the same”.

3. The arguments of the Judge, on the basis of which he not only refused my application against Mr Riem, but considered it TWOM, are contained in paragraphs 55-56 of the first Judgment:

        "(55) It will be apparent that Mr Riem did not engage with the substance of the statements to which Mr Sychev had referred, offering the essentially conclusory assertion that PhosAgro’s position had not changed. Whether or not that assertion was an accurate characterisation of the position would depend on the context of the particular communications (not least whether they were concerned with the narrower question of whether it was part of Mr Sychev’s responsibility actually to conduct litigation in the courts, as opposed to a wider question of whether he had responsibility for the decision to initiate proceedings, strategy choices etc), and whether the statements were made on behalf of PhosAgro. I am far from saying that there would have been nothing to be said on the Claimants’ behalf on these points, if it had ever been necessary for the court to consider them. It is easy to see why Mr Sychev thinks that these documents assist him, and why he would have sought to make much of them at the hearing of the jurisdiction challenge.
        (56) Whatever the ultimate answer to that question might have been, it was entirely appropriate for Mr Riem to set out what his client’s position was. The final sentence of this paragraph, which forms the basis of the committal application, was essentially a throw-away remark which could only have been understood as, and only have been intended to be, a summary assertion as to what PhosAgro’s position would be at the hearing. In any event, comments of this kind have absolutely no impact on judges in determining applications, and Mr Riem could never have thought otherwise. This sentence should never have been the subject of a committal application”.

4. I have underlined key passages with which I strongly disagree.

5. As regards the first underlined phrase (Mr Riem did not engage with the substance of the statements to which Mr Sychev had referred, offering the essentially conclusory assertion that PhosAgro’s position had not changed), this is not true, which I justified in paragraphs 19-23 of my letter to Mr Justice Foxton dated 27 January:

       (20) “This is not so, as can be easily verified by reading paragraph 46 of Riem 3 in its entirety. This paragraph consists of 8 sub-paragraphs and in each of them Mr Riem states his counter-arguments exactly on the substance of one or another of my arguments. It would be wrong to assume that in the eighth case, unlike the first seven, Mr Riem did not go into the substance of the matter.

       (21) Moreover, in this particular case, not only Mr Riem, but the entire PCB Byrne firm was involved in detailed studying of the substance of this issue (see paragraphs 46-52 of my affidavit). And in paragraphs 53-58 of my affidavit, I provided information that, contrary to the promises of Mr Riem to analyze in more detail the substance of my accusation (argument) in the forthcoming answer on the issue of jurisdiction, this issue was not mentioned there at all.

       (22) It is therefore quite clear that (1) Mr Riem (and the entire firm PCB Byrne) went into the substance at the time of the fact of the contempt (and in the subsequent correspondence directed on my part to have the fact removed), but (2) have failed to challenge the existence of apparent contradictions in their client's position, while continuing to insist on SFC for a stage of the proceedings, a position in which is based on the position which has been repeatedly and directly refuted by PhosAgro”.

6. These obvious arguments were not taken into account by Mr Justice Foxton. 

7. As for the second underlined phrase, its fallacy is also obvious, since in 2015-2020 PhosAgro in principle denied my participation in litigation absolutely in any form, which is confirmed by the literal content of the relevant PhosAgro’s statements, which does not allow for any double interpretation. In these statements, there is not even a hint that I participated in litigation in any form, so the attempts of Mr Justice Foxton to present the situation in such a way that it is allegedly about disagreements on the form of my participation do not stand up to any criticism – PhosAgro has repeatedly denied my participation in any form in principle. 

8. There can also be no doubt that all three previous statements reflect exactly the position of PhosAgro. The first statement in the table comes from the CEO of PhosAgro and is addressed to the police, when checking my crime report, in which I stated that I had been the head of tax litigation. Commenting on this, PhosAgro's CEO stated: “The protection of the interests of the enterprises of the PhosAgro group in the Arbitration courts has never been and could not be included in the area of ​​responsibility of the headed by Sychev Department of Taxation of LLC RBC "PhosAgro". This aspect of activity, due to the structural and functional characteristics of enterprises, the management and parent companies, has always been attributed to the area of ​​responsibility of legal departments". How any doubts can arise (1) about the fact that these words come specifically from the CEO of PhosAgro, and (2) their content is categorical and does not allow any ambiguity - I do not understand at all. The same applies to the other two statements, which are made (1) by PhosAgro's official representatives (2) as part of official procedures and (3) do not allow for any ambiguity. 

9. I also underlined the phrase (third one) “at the hearing of the jurisdiction challenge”. By using these words, Mr Justice Foxton tries to make the situation so that the alleged lie in question is relevant to the issue of jurisdiction and should be the subject of discussion at the jurisdiction hearing. This is not the case at all, because the lie of Mr Riem is contained in the witness statement on the issue of SFC, applications for which were filed by all the Defendants with great delay and only after they realized that their position stated when challenging the jurisdiction does not stand up to criticism, and, in particular, contradicts their own previous position. The purpose of submitting belated applications for SFC was to prevent, in principle, these apparent contradictions from being considered at any hearing (to prevent a hearing on jurisdiction from taking place in principle). Therefore, in the context of the question of SFC, the importance of denying obvious contradictions is of fundamental importance – Mr Riem, with the help of supposedly throw-away lies, wanted to ensure that obvious contradictions were not revealed at the hearing on the issue of jurisdiction. 
 

                                                   To be continued