New Party

Bulletin

Main page | Archive | Russian

5

September

2000

"LIQUIDATORS"

 

September 23, 2000 the judicial processes on the Complaints of the not registered candidates in the deputies of the Chamber of the Representatives of the National assembly of the Republic of Belarus were held in the Supreme court. The judicial sessions reminded a SHOW in a circus than a judicial process. The Supreme court has turned into a helpless body. Behaviour of the judges, their helpless caused pity. It was clear that the courts accepted the obviously illegal decisions. For example:

 

The businesses of Alexander Vasiliev and Marina Levonevskaya, the applicants in the candidates in the deputies, were united in one business and were considered by one judge simultaneously.

Alexander Vasiliev was refused in the registration as the candidate in the deputies as he, ostensibly, has hidden his party-membership. Marina Levonevskaya was refused in the registration as the candidate in the deputies as she, ostensibly, has hidden her party-membership and place of work.

In the court it was proved that Marina Levonevskaya and Alexander Vasiliev were never joined the United Civil Party (UCP) according to the Charter of UCP. There are no their applications to join them the numbers of this party, there is no decision of the joint body about the reception them into this party, there is no the registered party structure in Grodno, they never were registered in the party organisation, they were never given out the Party-membership card. The leaders of the party (A. Lebedko and A. Dobrovolsky) consider them to be their members. And the fact that they are not the members of the party is not taken into account by anybody. Vasiliev and Levonevskaya 28 06 2000 said that they left the party to come unhooked from the leaders of UCP. But the leaders of UCP are not interested in this fact. They consider them to be the members of the party. The document which says that Levonevskaya and Vasiliev are the members of UCP and which was given by the leaders of UCP played the decisive role in the acceptance of the decision by the court which refused to satisfy the Complaints of these. In other words, the court obliged M. Levonevskaya and A. Vasiliev to be the members of this party.

One more flight of a judicial idea.

Marina Levonevskaya fulfils the duties of the accountant in the public organisation The Spring of Mercy on a voluntary basis, she does not get money for this, the labour contract with organisation was not made up.

The court determined that M. Levonevskaya has hidden the place of the work. I.e. in the opinion of the court, public obligations are the place of work.

If we take into account how rough and defiant the judges behaviour was during the process it became clear that the judge carried out the special order on the final "liquidation" of the candidates in the deputies.

 

The Supreme court treated Valery Levonevsky, author of these lines not less interestingly. Valery Levonevsky was refused by the selective commission in the registration as he has "concealed" the structure at his dacha when he filled in his declaration. The court was convinced that the real estate and structures Levonevsky does not have. What to do?

The court has accepted the original decision: to refused in the registration as V. Levonevsky has specified the dacha in the declaration (on the demand of the tax body), and it, in opinion of the court, should not be specified. The judge was asked the question: How is it necessary to fill in the declaration? The judge truthfully answered: I do not know".

So. If you specify a dacha you will be refused in the registration because you has specified, if you do not specify you will be also refused because you has not specified. The circle has become isolated. Even if you honestly fill the declaration you will be not registered all the same. The candidate in the deputies is not registered. It was refused to satisfy the Complaint.

The details after the finishing of the process.

 

24.09.00 Valery Levonevsky

 

 

Does the Central Commission really exist?

 

All my acquaintances who visited its session 20.09.2000 have such a question.

That day the session of the Central commission of the Republic of belarus on the election and realisation of referendums (CC) was held. The Complaints of the not registered candidates in the deputies of the Chamber of the Representatives of the National assembly were discused. The complaints of Alexander Vasiliev, Marina Levonevskaya , leaders of the democratic movement in the Grodno region were considered at the end of the working day. They all three were refused to realise their right on the legal help by L. Ermoshina, a chairman of the Central Commission. Their representative, a member of the Grodno branch of the Belorussian Helsinki Committee was not allowed to participation in the trial with the Complaints. This is the roughest breach of article 62 of the Constitution of Republic of Belarus. And the decision about the prohibition to get of the legal help was accepted not by the commission but by L. Ermoshina personally. On all businesses the text of the Complaints of the above mentioned citizens was not even read by the members of the commission. Their reasons were not practically discussed, and Marina Levonevskaya was solely has forbidden to add the Complaint. They read the conclusion "of experts", asked a pair of formal questions and voted. It is a conveyor. And the buttons "Start" and "Stop" are in the hands of L. Ermoshina. It reminded old "kind" times. 1937. "Three men". To "shoot". Who is "for"? Unanimously. You are free.

The question on the Commission who was refrained" or who was "against" at the voting was not asked.

But we shall return to our Grodno applicants. Why wee they refused in the registration?

Marina Levonevskaya and Alexander Vasiliev were refused because of their party-membership. The commission asserts that they have hidden that they are the members of the United Civil Party (UCP). What for did A. Lebedko (the chairman of UCP) and his fraternity play a dirty trick, having submitted the lists of the members of the party which consists from dead soulsin the bodies of Justice? It is clear. They "boycott" the election and want to do harm in maximal size to the opponents. So, they give out the information to the elective commission that the persons having already left the party and never submitting applications to join it are its members.

The position of the Elective Commission is not clear. You see, the membership in the party should be confirmed documentary. I.e. there should be an application from a citizen to join the party, the decision of the joint body about joining to the party (protocol) and the most important thing is the confirmation of the citizen that he is a member of the party. The commission and leaders of UCP do not have, but all of them amicably affirm all the same that you a members of the party.

We know A. Lebedko, A. Dobrovolsky, G Raspopov and other "leaders" of this party for a long time, we know them as deeply dishonourable people, on this ground there was the conflict in the party. But such it was impossible to expect such actions even from them. They, maybe have already enlisted A. Lukashenko with the present Chamber of the Representatives, Government and elective Commissions to their party lists. It is a booby-hatch, instead of the party!

Maybe L. Ermoshina is already a member of this party.

Marina Levonevskaya was also accused by CC in one more "breach": her duties of the accountant in the public organisation were thought of as the concealment of the place of work. Reasons of Marina Levonevskaya that she never received wages for this "work" and there is no even an order about the engagement were not taken into the account.

Who are the lawyers working in CC? They say that among members of the commission there was the vice-chairman of the Supreme Court. They do not know elementary things known even for a schoolboy.

But it is necessary to thank the Central commission because they removed the absolutely crazy statement of the District selective commission #52 (Grodno Central district) about the in-authenticity of the signatures in subscription sheets of M. Levonevskaya and about the doubtful information in her declaration on the incomes from the decision about the refusal in the registration.

I had an impression that everything has already decided, and the session of CC is a simple formality where the members of CC create "mass meeting" and legalise the decisions of other "uncles".

As to the author of these lines, Valery Levonevsky, the reasons to refuse him are very confidential: in the declaration about the incomes he specified the doubtful information. What they are they do not tell. Earlier the district commission justified the refusal in the registration because he did not specify a wooden structure at the dacha (the toilet) in the declaration. And it is the concealment of the property.

 

What now the "virtuosos" from CC will think up, we shall see! They will explain in the Supreme Court.

The disposal of legal proceeding will pass September 23, 2000 in a building of the Supreme Court in Minsk:

At 11.00 on the complaint of Valery Levonevsky

At 14.00 on the Complaint of Marina Levonevskaya

At 15.30 on the Complaint of Alexander Vasiliev

 

22.09.2000

 

Valery Levonevsky

 

"Scholars"

L. Ermoshina, the chairman of the Central Commission on election, in Sunday 17.09.2000 on TV declared that 99 % of cases of the refusal in the registration of the candidates in the deputies are proved and are lawful. These words seem to be strange because the experts working in the Central commission who prepare the conclusions has not yet studied "refusal" materials. But L. Ermoshina has already given come to the conclusions on this question. I.e. the result under the Complaints of the not holding candidates in the deputies in Chamber of the Representatives is known for it(her) before consideration of a question by the experts and commission.

The qualification of the workers of the Central commission it the special theme.

Let's begin from the subscription sheets on petition to support the future candidates in the deputies. The basic part "of breaches" on which the signatures of the voters in subscription sheets are recognised in valid are the not stipulated corrections. I.e. all corrections should in the opinion of the members of elective commissions, be especially marked, otherwise, the signature is considered to be doubtful.

But in the Selective Code THERE IS NO SUCH reason to recognise the signature doubtful.

And if the commission recognise the signature to be doubtful because of the not stipulated correction it is the arbitrariness.

But in the Elective Code THERE IS NO SUCH reason to recognise the signature doubtful.

There is no also such concept - CORRECTION. What should we consider as a correction? Is the led round letter "O" a correction or not? And each member of the commission interpret the concept of CORRECTION in his own way.

Moreover, when the subscription sheets were accepted by a member of the commission, the acts of their reception were not made, and to determine whether these corrections are made by a man who collected the signatures or a member of the district commission is impossible. The commission does not have any document confirming that the subscription sheets were handed over with corrections. Hence, during the delivery of sheets there were no corrections.

The subscription sheets were not numbered, and now to determine whether these sheets are handed over or they are sheets from a dustbin is impossible.

The note: the initiative group of the future candidate, for example, has collected 2000 signatures to support him. It has assured these sheets in the bodies of the state authority. The legislation requires only 1000 signatures. They have handed over 1200 signatures, they have thrown other sheets out in a dustbin. Can now somebody define what signatures were checked - from the dustbin or those which were handed over in the commission?

The following question

The central commission has developed such form of the protocol to recognise the doubtful signatures from which it is impossible to understand why a signature is recognised doubtful who recognised it as doubtful and when. In the protocol only the number of the doubtful signatures is underlined. I.e. the members of the commission have looked at the ceiling and have determined that 70 signatures are doubtful. And as you could prove the opposite. In the protocol the reference to whose signature is recognised in valid (surname, name, patronymic of the voter) is completely absent.

In our opinion, each signature which is recognised as doubtful should be specially reflected in the act with the indication of a surname of a voter and reasons on which this signature is recognised in valid.

The second "trap" is the declaration about the incomes. What income should be specified in the declaration: total or pure. Is the sale of old boots through commission shop considered to be the income?. If you have the toilet at the dacha is it necessary to mention it in the declaration or not? There a lot of other questions on different points and the commission does not give explanations. And they refuse in the registration when you did not specify a shed or toilet.

The third "trap" is party-membership. Only in Grodno they refused to register three candidates, because they have "hidden" party-membership. The candidates say: We left the party two months ago, there is a reference with a seal and signature.

The members of the commission say: We do not recognise your leaving from the party and we refuse in the registration as is the information about the party-membership is false.

 

Office-work in district and central elective commissions I would call as "complete brothel". They do not have the protocols of the reception - transfer of the documents having for the future candidates in the deputies huge importance, the personal businesses not laced up and are not numbered, there are no seals, entering and outputting numbers.

The commissions completely ignore the Instruction about the office-work #13.

In other words all conditions for mass jugglings of results of the election are created.

19.09.2000

 

Again about "dirty" technologies.

In the newspaper Soviet Belorussia from September 13, 2000 the Decision of the Central Commission of Republic of Belarus on the election and realisation of republican referendums from 11.09.2000 About the order of the use of the public funds of the mass information when preparing and realising the election of the deputies of the Chamber of the Representatives of the National assembly of the Republic of Belaus (the text of the decision is to the address: http://izbiratel.narodru.org/pos1109.html) was published.

Item 6 which regulates the order of making speech on TV and broadcasting of the candidates in the deputies says:

District selective commissions carry out a toss-up between the candidates in the deputies to define the date to make a speech for each candidate in the deputies in the term of two days after the registration of the candidates in the deputies of the Chamber of the Representatives.

The application to participate in the toss-up is made up by the candidates in the deputies of the Chamber of the Representatives to the appropriate district selective commission the next day after the registration but not later September 15, 2000.

I.e. all candidates in the deputies registered after September 15, 2000, for example, registered after the protest of the decisions of district selective commissions about the refusal in the registration as the candidate in the deputies can not be able to make speech on TV and the radio.

This rule contradicts article 46 of the Elective Code of the Republic of Belarus which says:

the Candidates in the Presidents of the Republic of Belarus, in the deputies of the Chamber of the Representatives, in the deputies of the local Councils of the deputies, political parties, other public associations, labour collectives, the citizens who have put forward the candidates use the public funds of the mass information on the equal rights from the time of registration of the candidates

On the official data more than 200 (approximately one quarter part from the total number of those who submitted the appropriate application) candidates in the deputies "were refused" by district elective commissions to the formal and far-fetched attributes.

The number 200 - causes the certain doubts. Only in Grodno about 70 % of people submitted application to stand by the candidate in the deputies were refused by the local authorities. More than 40 appeals are sent in the Grodno region (in Belarus there 6 regions and. Minsk). And how many people did appealed against the Decision of the district elective commissions? I think, that the number "of the forbidden" candidates in the deputies is higher than the officially published one.

For what is it done? All is very simple. According to this decision of the Central commission practically all objectionable the candidates to the authorities, even if they will be restored in the rights, will stay without TV and the radio and lose 10 days of pre-election propaganda as minimum. How have a look to equal opportunities.

We sent the appropriate application with the request to change this decision (it is possible to read the text of the application to the address: http://izbiratel.narodru.org/zav1709.html).

Will the result be positive? Let's see. But nobody will return the missed time to the restored candidates in the deputies for propaganda of the voters.

The strange businesses are created and in the Central elective commission which refuses to accept by fax the letters of the citizens directed to change their illegal decisions. May be they do not have paper for the fax or the heads does not allow.

The results "of the elimination" of the candidates in the deputies are interesting. "The leaders" "of race" appear. The district commissions did not have any questions to them. They are the employees of law-enforcement bodies (regular and non-staff), military men, the workers of the executive committee and about the executive committee - 70 %, 20 % - businessmen, approached to authority, and "Afghans", 10 % - others.

The propaganda of the first 90 % of the candidates from the authority and the expenditure of money resources on these purposes breaking the Elective Code have already began. But the district elective commissions amicably close eyes on this. For example: in Grodno everywhere including the building of the District Elective commission #53 15.09.2000 the propaganda leaf of the businessman supported by this district commission and the Grodno authorities, of Krupitsa, a candidate in the deputies, hung. Money has not given yet, and materials hung already. I shall remind for those who does not know the propaganda materials can be made only on the means allocated by the elective commission.

A Avraamchik, a candidate from the authorities, the vice-chief of DIA of Grodno executive committee "used" the militiamen and they collected the signatures for him in their uniform. And, the petition passed originally. The author of these lines was a witness to that. The petition was made in dependent from DIA organisations. For example, in a hostel for "prisoners" the captain of militia called up all living in that hostel and showed them where to subscribe in subscription sheets. In these sheets a surname, name, patronymic, year of birth, series and number of the passport, and other necessary data for persons signing this document were already put. The near there was the official of this hostel. Nobody refused to sign for the colonel of the militia but try to refuse and you will be sent to the not so distant places. There a lot of such examples "of getting of the signatures. Should the militia be outside of the politics? No, they climb all the same and by the crowds!

The separate theme is "Afghans". It is strangely enough but they stand on many districts, their representatives are included in many elective commissions, and they do not have problems. I really respect these people but many of them have the strongly changed mentality. Blood, daily murders of people, destruction of cities and villages. What laws will they accept?

It is clear that they have large lobby, high militia and military grades. But the parliament can not consist only from the militiamen, workers of special services, Afghans, military men and workers "of the vertical". All of them will accept the laws under the order of the commander -in-chief (A. Lukashenko). They have discipline in blood.

Or does the junta want to come to the authority?

 

15.09.2000

Valery Levonevsky

 

"Grey" weekdays of the future candidates in the deputies.

13.09 2000 at 9.10 in Grodno the automobile on which Alexander Vasiliev and Valery Levonevsky, the future candidates in the deputies of the Chamber of the Representatives, moved was blocked by the employees DIA of Leninsky district of Grodno. The employees of militia forbade to move on the automobile up to that time while Levonevsky undersign .the love letter from the tax bodies, which we love very much. At the same day, approximately at 11.00, the employees of Criminal Investigation Department searched and made video-shooting of the property of Valery Levonevsky. The search was as usually carried out without the sanction of the public prosecutor and when even the owner of the property was absent. The employees of the militia know about each movement of Valery Levonevsky and about all his telephone calls, judging by their awareness. We have already got used to the outside supervision. Are they a security? I did not ask. 12.09.2000 the employees of the militia twice tried to penetrate into the apartment of Valery Levonevsky, demanding from small children (the parents were absent) to open the door. The Grodno tax inspection has become more active and decided to carry out the next tax check of Valery Levonevsky. All day long the crowds of the tax inspectors demand from Valery Levonevsky to undersign some papers. It looks like as the non-authorised demonstrations and pickets, organised by the management of the tax bodies.

 

Where does the office of the public prosecutor looks at? It does not look anywhere. All applications are answered, probably, by a yardman instead of the public prosecutor, all answers from the office of the public prosecutor are incorrect and not on the theme.

 

13.09.2000

Valery Levonevsky

 

The commission meets in the afternoon, by night prostitutes and bandits (passions on the eve of the election).

All sensible people has ho doubts that the election in the Republic of Belarus will be falsified on 90% by the authorities. The question is only to study the scales and mechanisms of the falsification. Some stages of this mechanism we shall try to sound. The first stage is the lack of information. The pre-election company has lasted for a month, all district commissions have been formed, the signatures to support the future candidates in the deputies and the Elective Codes with the additions and changes are absent in the sale. Moreover, none of the elective commissions has no the codes in Russian of the new edition. None of the commissions has no blanks connected with the elective company to fill in Russian. 80% of the population of Belarus speak Russian, small mistake in the translation and the document is considered to be in valid. Blanks in Belorussian is also a rare thing. What for is it done? It is done not to let us, voters, become members of these commissions (elective) and become candidates in the deputies. The second stage is the organisation of the district elective commissions. Only people who have been checked by the authority can become the members of the district elective commissions. 99% of the commissions are workers of the executive committees, vice-political instructors of the enterprises, the chiefs of the enterprises and structures which are controlled by the executive committees. To fool the public opinion most of them are put forward in the commissions by the petitions. When and where did this petition took place is a separate big story. None of the candidates proposed by us did not appear in the districts commissions. The organisation of the district commissions was a great secret. The third stage is not fulfilling of the duties by the members of the district commissions. For example, Grodno Zanemanskyay District Elective Commission #51. Its chief is a Vladimir Andreevich Khlyabich, a new director of the cinema October, the deputy of the Grodno regional councilr and he, as people say, get help from the executive committee (service tel. is 2-60-28 and 33-91-83 is home tel.). Yes, yes it is this cinema known by its night club which people call The Owl and this is the place where bandits, prostitutes, souteneurs and representatives of the state authority spend their free time. Khlyabich was elected as a member of the district commission by the petition (!!?). It is interesting were the signatures collected by night or in the afternoon? There are two very interesting details. The district commission is at one floor with The Owl. The entrance door of the commission is next to the exit into the hall, it is some kind of the study for solitude. The commission meets in the afternoon, by night prostitutes and bandits. Or vice versa. Or all together. It is difficult to understand. Everything has mixed at the level of the district, at the level of the country. Isnt there any other place in the city to locate the district commission? Or have not the brothers permitted them to be located in any other place? It is very convinient, everything is near-vodka, girls and commission. You may have any you want. The second detail: the vice-chairmanof the district commission is Janna Vasilievna Vanzha, the manager of the affairs of the administration of October district. According to item 5 of article 42 of the Elective Code the District Commissions have to help to promote the candidates in the deputies. But for this commission the laws have not been written. Three times we visited this commission, three times asked to help to make the application to register our initiative group to promote a candidate in the deputies. Three times we were refused. The result: the commission has given up to register the initiative group of Alexander Vasiliev (tel. (0152) 72-61-19) as there were mistakes in the application. The new application A. Vasiliev will not submit any more, as terms of the submission of the application have expired. We had an impression that this commission artificially creates obstacles to promote the candidates in the deputies and protects interests of one of the candidates in the deputies who has been registered as the first candidate, the registration of other candidates is artificially detained. Copy-books of the account of the applications and appeals into this commission are not laced up and are not numbered and are not registered anywhere. V. A. Khlyabich himself behaves very roughly and impolite when talks with the citizens. He does not react to the remarks, completely ignores the rights and lawful interests of the voters. After conversation with him we would like to answer them in their slang You, brother, on whom do you crumb the long loaves? Such are district commissions in Grodno. On wrongful actions of Khlyabich and his commissions are sent the appropriate applications.

To be continued.

 

Valery Levonevsky

http://www.levonevski.net

 

 

Rambler's Top100 TopList