A Judicial Arbitrariness ’under a Moscow Roof’

Oleynikov lost an action in the Arbitration court of the Khabarovsk city and decided to file a suit against the guarantor of the Constitution. The suit was filed to the City Court of Moscow which transferred it to the Khamovniki district court of Moscow. The Khamovniki district court would take the case into consideration for three years.

In November 2004 Oleynikov filed a new suit against President of Russia.

The STATEMENT OF ACT on the right on the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Oleynikov’s demands are the following:

1. I apply for the recognition of my right to get defense in case my constitutional rights are violated, as it is guaranteed in the Constitution of the Russian Federation under paragraph 2 Article 2, paragraph 1 Article 15, paragraph 1 Article 35, paragraph 1 Article 45, paragraph 1 and 2 Article 46 and Article 53
2. I demand that, in accordance with paragraph 2 Article 80 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
   1. President shall establish an independent expert commission including qualified civil law and arbitration law experts;
   2. This expert commission shall examine cases of Arbitration suits No A73-5712/9-99, A-73, 4188/2001-43, A73-6243/2002-39 and consider if the court decisions are lawful.

Oleynikov filed a lawsuit demanding to enjoy the rights as guaranteed by the Constitution but failed again.

At an informal meeting with a Helsinki attorney, Oleynikov was told the following, «Power in Russia is corrupted and bureaucracy runs supreme».

We know that thousands Russian people find themselves in similar situation.

Finally, having lost all the hopes to get a constitutional defense, Oleynikov filed a lawsuit to the Tver district court of Moscow city. The defendant was the guarantor of the Russian Constitution  V. V. Putin.

Though Oleynikov explained his demands in clear and exact terms in his statement of claim he lost again.

Tver district court of Moscow city did not agree to try this case. (The attached document are the decision of the Tver district court of Moscow city and cassation assessment.)

What followed was really scary. Some strangers came to Oleynikov’s in-laws and his ex-wife, showed them some IDs in red covers and demanded from them his address. They claimed he had got credit in Israel and had not returned it.

The next day some strangers tried to get into a private house of Oleynikov’s ex-wife. Luckily the dog prevented them from intruding into the house. A day later other people came close to the house and tried to get in scaring nearly to death ex-wife of Oleynikov and his two-year old son. And again the dog rescued them.

The woman and the child had to leave the house. The were to go to the wife’s parents.

The information about these ’incidents’ has been made public and the intruders don’t bother the family any more.

We are telling this story as we think it might show other people that honest citizen should try to defend their constitutional rights honestly, by lawful means.

Your letters, commentary and stories are welcome. We are looking forward to hearing from you.

Counter-measures at non-legal sphere

TO BE CONTINUEDs