Sorry, but it’s time to write me into the Constitution of the Russian Federation. Literally with the phrase: no rights whatsoever, and especially not the right to judicial protection, apply to citizen Navalny.
It’s exactly the same story as with Chaika. This crook claimed that our investigation into his family was the work of foreign intelligence services.
We went to court (the win is obvious) — but the claims were simply not accepted by any court in Moscow or St. Petersburg, on the grounds that “Navalny’s rights were not violated.”
Now the fraudsters at Russia-1 (a Russian state TV channel) have cobbled together their own film claiming that I am an American-British spy codenamed “Agent Freedom” and that I organized Magnitsky’s murder.
I file suit (the win is obvious) — and today our claim was left without movement by the Savyolovsky Court on a number of unlawful grounds, the main one being a reference to a provision of the Civil Procedure Code stating that the statement of claim does not specify exactly how the plaintiff’s rights, freedoms, and lawful interests were violated or threatened, and what the plaintiff’s demands are.
Exactly the same as in the Chaika case. Eight different courts, using identical wording, told us that Chaika’s statements did not violate the rights of the plaintiff, Navalny.
And here too, the judges cannot understand how the plaintiff Navalny’s rights were violated. After all, he was only accused of espionage, of destroying Russia, and of organizing a man’s murder. Surely that couldn’t possibly violate anyone’s rights?
That’s the main point. The rest of the objections are minor by comparison, but let’s go through them too:
The court writes that it was not specified which exact statements the plaintiff asks to have recognized as defamatory, word for word. But that’s simply false. Here is the statement of claim. Here are the exact quotations, word for word:
The court writes that the method for retracting the defamatory information was not specified. Even though specifying the method of retraction is the plaintiff’s right, not his obligation. And the court does not cite any legal provision here at all.
The court states that an additional state fee must be paid based on the number of claims made. Here the judge is simply inventing legal provisions that do not exist.
This is simply a made-up quotation. Under the law, it works like this:
We filed a non-pecuniary claim. We paid 300 rubles (about a few U.S. dollars). We made no other demands besides having the statements recognized as defamatory.
In short, we have already resubmitted the application to the Savyolovsky Court, having corrected the last three “violations.”
But as for what to do about the fact that Kiselyov’s lying films about me supposedly do not affect my rights — I have no idea.