"All rise, the court is in session! The court is coming, but only justice is nowhere.” - said Anton Pavlovich Chekhov. The saying of the great classic is still relevant.
On May 4, in the Chekhov city court, one could see how justice was being done in relation to two defendants - Oleg Gulyaev and Ivan Zavodnov. One of the defendants was taken out of the courtroom on a stretcher, and the judge hid in the deliberation room.
In the process, the defense heard damning evidence that the case was falsified. Since December 2019, the defense of the accused has been trying to prove that Gulyaev and Zavodnov were victims of violent lawlessness - evidence is submitted to all departments relevant to the case.
The Theft That Wasn't
The story began in December 2019, when Sergei Filatchev (nicknamed Svekla), an experienced drug addict, resident of Chekhov near Moscow, broke into the Chaikhona restaurant and beat Irina Gulyaeva, the wife of one of the accused. The man threatened to kill her. The attack was due to the uncompromising position of the woman towards the plunderers of state property.
Irina Gulyaeva sounded the alarm when she learned that Sergei Filatchev, together with crime boss Oleg Strekalov (nicknamed Zika), had stolen cultural heritage lands in the area of Chekhov's historic railway station. In a unique place where Anton Pavlovich met great guests: Levitan, Gilyarovsky, Nemirovich-Danchenko, illegally built trade pavilions of Zika and Beetroot appeared.
Strekalov is on the international wanted list. Fraudsters illegally registered land plots and built shops in this place. The city has lost its historical appearance, and at the same time, centuries-old trees were cut down near the station.
Irina Gulyaeva sounded the alarm, and the scammers began to quickly transfer real estate to affiliates. So, the owner of the pavilions is now the son of Filatchev Roman.
After the incident in Chaikhon, Oleg Gulyaev tried to contact Filatchev. He knew about his criminal past and feared for the safety of his family. The man tried to talk and find out the reasons for the attack.
Filatchev decided to put the squeeze on the businessman's family. He initiated the initiation of a criminal case: he connected all his connections - the head of the investigation Galina Chernogorova, her husband - operative Pavel Rozhkov, her subordinate - investigator Yevgeny Vasiliev, the head of the criminal investigation department Ilya Kuznetsov.
On the instructions of Svekla, his driver Oleg Telminov and relative Dmitry Filatchev filed complaints with the police about the robbery allegedly committed against them. The main intention of the attackers is to quickly initiate a criminal case and extort a large amount of money from the businessman Gulyaev. The case appeared within 4 hours after the appeal of the false victims.
In December 2019, Oleg Gulyaev was accused for far-fetched reasons of unlawfully taking possession of an old car without the purpose of stealing, despite the fact that at that time the businessman owned three expensive foreign cars.
By the way, the charge against Gulyaev, brought under the article of robbery during his arrest, was reclassified 7 times in two years: robbery twice, theft twice, arbitrariness three times, and all with different crime scenes where Gulyaev was not mentioned.
Gulyaev Oleg and Irina, participants in those events, say that at first, after the illegal initiation of a criminal case, they demanded 20 million rubles from them. When the family refused to pay, Oleg Gulyaev was detained. For the purpose of psychological influence, his son was detained along with him, who had recently undergone an operation to remove a tumor. The younger Gulyaev was beaten in front of his father.
This case has been pending at the Chekhov City Court for 14 months. All judges with a specialization in criminal proceedings, under various pretexts, were removed or refused to consider this case themselves. They probably understand the reasons for the appearance of a fake case.
Now it is considered by the sixth judge in a row - Shanina Lyubov Yurievna. Her area of expertise is civil litigation. Why she took up a direction unusual for her is probably a mystery for someone, but not for the accused and the defense.
The fact is that in the process the interests of Filatchev and Telminov are represented by lawyer Svetlana Tsvirko. This is a former judge of the Chekhov court. At the time when she wore the gown, Lyubov Shanina worked as an assistant to judge Larisa Pochukayeva. This woman was the first to withdraw her candidacy from the consideration of the case against Gulyaev because of her friendship with her former colleague, Svetlana Tsvirko.
The absurdity of the criminal case itself is that, according to the investigation, three people are accomplices in the crime - Maxim Efimov, Oleg Gulyaev and Ivan Zavodnov. At the same time, Efimov was not the defendant in the criminal case against Gulyaev and Zavodnov, but, by some strange logic, a pre-trial agreement was concluded with him. And he gives evidence that does not coincide with the testimony of those who turned to the police.
The investigation came up with a story with Efimov's use of a chilled machine gun. For her credibility to the house in front of the house where Efimov and Telminov stopped - this place was originally the site of the alleged attack and theft - rusty shells were planted. In general, the case file mentions 6 different places of theft. Including, a place is indicated on the 68th kilometer of the Khlevino-Dubna highway, the length of which, according to official data, is only 6 kilometers.
Further, even more absurdly, the perjurer Maxim Yefimov, who slandered Gulyaev and Zavodnov, is convicted on February 9, 2022 in a criminal case with a number that does not exist in the database, allocated against an unidentified person. The case file contains several places where a foreign car was stolen, and its circumstances contradict the charges brought against Efimov. But the participants in the court session agreed with all this: for example, the state prosecutor Yuri Rabaev. It was he who announced the accusation inconsistent with the evidence examined by the court. It is interesting that there is no verdict on pre-trial judge Efimov in the relevant structures either. It was never sent to the Chekhov DMIA, to the database of the Information Center of the Main Directorate of the Moscow Region and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia, to the Prosecutor's Office of the district and region. No case, no need for a verdict!!!
The security forces do not want to be held responsible for the fact that two innocent people with supervising prosecutors from the district and region spent a year in prison. Moreover, at the stage of the preliminary investigation, the criminal case had not been extended for more than 6 months. The materials contain forged copies of procedural documents on the extension of the investigation and custody, without cover letters, seals, registration numbers. This is known to the Prosecutor General's Office, the prosecutor of the region Sergey Zabaturin, his deputies, the head of the police department for the Moscow region Viktor Paukov and the head of the investigative department for the Moscow region Voronin are aware of this. But the "honor" of the uniform is more precious to them than justice and law!!!
Judge Shanina's attitude to the ongoing trial immediately alerted the defense side of Oleg Gulyaev. She did not take into account the fact that the circumstances of the commission of the crime in the accusation against pre-trial judge Efimov were not established, and its text itself did not correspond to the verdict. Shanina rejected without any reason all the motions of the defense to return the case to the prosecutor. She made most of the decisions without leaving the deliberation room for a minute.
The impartiality of the court is one of the fundamental conditions for a fair trial. Everyone has the right to a hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. The Law on the Status of Judges calls on a judge to avoid anything that could cast doubt on his objectivity, fairness and impartiality (p2, art. 3). The court cannot take one side or the other.
At the same time, in this case, Judge Shanina not only made unjust decisions, but also openly took the side of the prosecution. During the meeting, Oleg Gulyaev became ill, but the judge insisted on continuing, and, leaving the defendant, who had a heart attack and heart surgery, in a life-threatening condition, continued the court session.
As Gulyaev's wife Irina said, when she ran into the hall, her husband was in a state where his speech was incoherent, his tongue was slurred, it was obvious that the person was having an attack.
The defense was forced to challenge the judge in order to be able to call an ambulance on their own, as the judge refused to do so. With a pressure of 200/100, Gulyaev was hospitalized.
The defense is appealing against the actions of the judge, since she believes that she grossly exceeded her official powers for selfish purposes, wanting to convict Gulyaev under any circumstances, even at the cost of his death. Judge Shanina created all the prerequisites for a heart attack. The meeting was held in a room of 10 sq. m. with 11 people in it. According to eyewitnesses, she did not consider the case, but set records for the speed of its consideration, interrupting, refusing to announce defense motions, resolving them without leaving the courtroom in minutes. By the way, when setting the next date for the hearing, Judge Lyubov Shanina forgot to record the events that happened to Oleg Gulyaev in the minutes. When examining the minutes of the court session, the defense found that the minutes of the court sessions were greatly distorted and curtailed.
Upon the arrival of the ambulance, judge Shanina, without verifying the identity of the doctor, left the hall, was not present at the provision of assistance to Gulyaev, where she would clearly see the condition of the defendant and refused to leave her office. Her secretary behaved similarly to the judge, who, in response to a request to issue a protocol of the court session, provided an empty disk with an audio protocol. What a "pop, such a parish." They say this secretary is preparing to be a judge in the future. It becomes simply scary for the future with such judges.
Such an approach in the Chekhov court on the part of judges is a common practice. This allows lawyers such as Svetlana Tsvirko, in complicity with judges Olga Myadyuta and Lyubov, to participate in a patently unjust process.
On May 4 of the current Judge of the Chekhov City Court Olga Myadyuta, a judge who earlier, with the participation of lawyer Tsvirko, pronounced a verdict on a non-existent case against Efimov, appointed 22 off-site court hearings in a psychiatric hospital of a general type GBU3 MO "MOPB named after. IN AND. Yakovenko" to resolve issues of extension / termination of compulsory medical measures, decisions on which are made on the day of their consideration.
On the eve of the field court hearings, Judge Olga Myadyuta sent an application to the call center of the Bar Association of the Moscow Region to ensure the participation of a defense counsel as appointed in accordance with Art. 51 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
An application for six cases was distributed to lawyer Svetlana Tsvirko, registration number in the Ministry of Justice of Russia for the Moscow Region No. 50/5105. Judicial hearings on materials on compulsory medical measures were held by Judge Myadyuta O.E. in the period from 11:00 to 13:00, while the distance from the court to the hospital is at least 30 km (travel time according to the Yandex map is at least 50 minutes).
At the same time, the lawyer Tsvirko, who arrived at the psychiatric clinic on May 4, with the knowledge and consent of Judge Myadyuta, with whom she is on friendly terms, and the assistant prosecutor Fedorova, did not take actual part in the off-site meetings, having registered participation formally, because. she has a court hearing scheduled for 11:00 in a criminal case, where she represents the victims by agreement.
During the period of court hearings in the Closed Psychiatric Hospital, where entry is strictly regulated, lawyer Tsvirko was in the process of a criminal case against Gulyaev and Zavodnov.
Thus, the objectivity of the issues resolved by the judge on the extension/termination of compulsory medical measures, as well as the legality of the decisions made in relation to six persons who committed socially dangerous acts in a state of insanity, are doubtful.
In fact, lawyer Svetlana Tsvirko received budgetary funds for meetings in which she did not take part, and also deprived another lawyer on duty of the opportunity to take a real part, to ensure proper protection of persons who are kept in a psychiatric hospital when decisions are made, after which she safely left to rest.
Thus, lawyer Tsvirko received remuneration from the state budget, being appointed, but not participating in legal proceedings in collusion with a judge, a prosecutor and a representative of a psychiatric hospital.
It is interesting that at present, after the publication of the Cheka-OGPU, an internal check has begun in the court. But it quickly ended, as the inspectors believed Judge Shanina, who did not enter the presence of Tsvirko's lawyer into the court record. The only thing they did not take into account is that there is an audio recording of the meeting, at which it is clearly clear that Tsvirko was present there.
The negligent and mercenary attitude to work, to the conscientious performance of duties, both by the lawyer Tsvirko, and the prosecutor and judge Myadyuta, were the reason and basis for the deliberately unjust verdict against Efimov, which was separated from the case of Oleg Gulyaev and Ivan Zavodnov, where not only the participant was convicted proceedings Maxim Efimov, but also two other persons not participating in the proceedings.
Efimov's verdict was passed by Judge Myadyuta in 5 minutes, while the verdict, issued in a special manner in connection with the conclusion of Efimov's pre-trial agreement, is not based on the accusation brought against Efimov and announced by the prosecutor in the process, is not based on the case materials, but is based purely on judge's assumptions.
This is not the first joint criminal act of lawyer Tsvirko and judge Myadyuta. What will this couple come up with in the future? And will they even stop?
All rise, the court is in session! The court is coming, but only justice is nowhere.
To be continued