Log in

No account? Create an account
24 August 2008 @ 07:44 pm
Translation from Russian into English  

Stop double dealers in judges’ robes and prosecutors’ straps!

An open letter to V. V. Putin

                In time of judiciary reform you conceded to V. M. Lebedev and the qualification boards preserved the right to solve the problem of judges inviolability.

 As a result of it corruption among judges and consequently rendering of designedly unlawful decisions (art. 305 of the Criminal code of the Russian Federation) have become ordinary and nobody wants to battle over it.

We cannot eliminate corruption in Russia unless we eliminate it among judges.

Reporting of crimes of judges to the Qualification boards or to the presidents of the courts or to the General Prosecutor’s Office or to the Presidential Administration one only gets runarounds.

A reply to notification to the President of RF No. 23-5/08 dated of January 29, 2008: “A Qualification board of judges ... is a public body of the community of judges and has no right to supply any legal treatment to justness and reasonableness of the procedural actions of a judge or to judicial decisions in respect of them”. Chairman of the Qualification board of judges of the city of Moscow S. M. Markov.

The Supreme qualification board of judges of the Russian Federation has been keeping silence since December 24, 2007.

The facts of crimes committed by judges and prosecutors are concealed from the Procurator General by his senior aide V. V. Taranenko – runaround No. 8-3935-07 dated of February 28, 2008 in reply to the follow inquiry of deputy of V. V. Zhirinovski

Inheritance property – apartment – is being taken away from an orphan and 80-years mother who has lost her son on August 07, 1995 unlawfully.

On March 31, 1992 Yu. A. Yurkov bought a one-roomed apartment from A. A. Yurasov. The transaction was confirmed by a gift contract so that A. A. Yurasov could avoid paying real estate sales proceedings tax which was very high at that time. Sham nature of the transaction was confirmed by A. A. Yurasov in the materials of the case.

A just decision of Timiryazevskii court of Moscow dated of August 17, 2001 by which A. A. Yurasov was denied to o settle his claims to acknowledge the gift contract, the exchange agreement, and the certificate of right to lawful inheritance as null and void was cancelled by a designedly unjust judicial act of Court Collegium of the Moscow City Court for Civil Cases.

To distribute irresponsibility at rendering designedly unjust judicial acts the “prosecutor-judges” link is used.

A prosecutor draws a designedly unjust conclusion and the decision is rendered by a judge, not the prosecutor. A judge renders a designedly unjust decision on the basis of the prosecutor’s conclusion.

 Decree of the Presidiu of Supreme Court of RF dated of December 08, 2004:

"5. Cases having to do with disputes in respect of declaring the transactions of vindicating living premises to be null and void are not covered by the list of cases specified in part 3 of art. 45 of the Civil Procedure Code of the RF, … and the claim in respect of evicting from the apartment had the nature of applying the consequences of the transaction being acknowledged to be null  and void (art. 167 of the Civil Procedure Code of the RF, therefore this dispute does not comply with the list of cases specified in part 3 of art. 45 of the Civil Procedure Code of the RF in respect of which prosecutor joins the case and draws a conclusion.

 Attending to the order of Yurasov’s myth real estate broker Deputy Chairman of Timiryazevskii court of Moscow S.V. Sevostiyanova rendered 2 designedly unjust decisions.

Her decision dated of May 30, 2006 was cancelled by the Decree issued by the Presidium of Moscow city court dated of December 18, 2006. Meantime, the court ignored the fact that according to the decision made by Timiryazevskiy District Court of Moscow in November 12, 2003 A.A. Yurasov was refused to satisfy his claim to apply consequences of the gift contract acknowledged null and void and accordingly acknowledge the exchange agreement as null and void and acknowledge the certificate of right given to V.Yu. Yurkov and R.P. Yurkova to lawfully inherit the apartment No. 67 in Klenoviy Boulevard 7 of Moscow as null and void.

But despite of it the cancelled decision of S.V. Sevostiyanova was restated to the letter by judge S. I. Terekhova on May 03, 2007 and judge Voronina on February 07, 2008.

 By a designedly unjust ruling of Moscow city court with implication of the prosecutor the decision was upheld on April 10, 2008 despite of the fact that a nonapplicable law was applied – p. 1 art. 302 of the Civil Code of RF and an applicable law was not applied – p. 1 art. 181 of the Civil Code of RF.

 The exchange contract was made on March 01, 1994. the suit in respect of applying the consequences of the nullity of a void transaction was not brought  up to February 29, 2004. The suit was brought on March 13, 2007.

The above mentioned transaction is voidable but it is declared to be void, the suit is accepted and the consequences of the transaction are applied 13 years after the transaction.

Details of the crimes are stated on 139 pages – in the “VEK” newspaper office, on 127 pages – in the office of V. V. Zhirinovski and on 104 pages – at the Supreme qualification board of judges of the Russian Federation.    

Respectfuly yours,   Yury Maslov

yury_maslovyury_maslov on October 4th, 2008 05:53 am (UTC)
no Problem!
yury_maslovyury_maslov on October 4th, 2008 05:57 am (UTC)
Прошу прощения. Хотел изменить своё сообщение. Не нашёл как. Вместо удаления своего, удалил Ваше. Восстановите, пожалуйста! В Друзья добавил.