За что Зеленский должен сидеть в тюрьме | Why Zelensky should be in prison [ENG SUB]

Zelensky's Potential Legal Troubles

Overview of Allegations Against Zelensky

• The speaker asserts that President Zelensky will face retribution and criminal prosecution for various offenses, including corruption and abuse of power.

• Specific allegations are introduced, citing an interview with Aleksander Tupitsky, the former head of the Constitutional Court, as a source for detailed claims against Zelensky.

Role of the Constitutional Court

• The Constitutional Court's purpose is to ensure all laws align with Ukraine’s Constitution; no law can contradict it legally.

• Judges are appointed in stages to prevent any single president from gaining control over them, which could lead to unconstitutional rulings.

Dictatorial Control and Legal Manipulation

• The speaker warns that control over the Constitutional Court allows a dictator to declare laws constitutional even if they are not.

• Claims that Zelensky has exerted pressure on judges constitute legal crimes that could lead to his prosecution.

Documented Evidence and Usurpation of Power

• The speaker emphasizes that documented evidence supports claims of Zelensky's usurpation of power and judicial pressure.

• A specific unconstitutional decree signed by Zelensky is highlighted as part of his overreach and persecution tactics.

Personal Health Crisis: Poisoning Incident

Introduction to Health Issues

• Discussion shifts to health concerns following a poisoning incident experienced by Aleksander Tupitsky.

• Tupitsky describes feeling unwell unexpectedly after being in good health prior to September 1.

Symptoms and Diagnosis

• Initial symptoms were unfamiliar; he consulted a doctor who suspected mercury poisoning based on described symptoms.

• Tests confirmed high levels of mercury in his body, indicating severe poisoning close to lethal levels.

Investigation into Poisoning

• Following hospitalization, police initiated a criminal case for attempted murder based on Tupitsky's statements regarding the poisoning.

• He proposed theories about how he might have been poisoned but remains uncertain about specifics or suspects involved.

Media Engagement Post-Incident

Political Persecution and Abduction Attempts

Departure from Ukraine and Allegations of Abduction

• The speaker left Ukraine due to political persecution, hinting at serious threats against them.

• An alleged abduction attempt was planned on Austrian territory, though the speaker is uncertain about the involvement of the SBU (Security Service of Ukraine).

• A Chechen national informed the speaker about discussions regarding their potential abduction, but it remains unclear if officials were involved.

Details of the Alleged Plan

• The plan reportedly aimed to remove the speaker to Ukraine via a neighboring country, similar to past incidents involving other individuals.

• There was speculation that they intended to extradite the speaker through Poland, believing it would be easier due to fewer border restrictions in Europe.

• Concerns were raised about whether Polish courts would act impartially given the political context surrounding the speaker's case.

Political Dynamics and Extradition Concerns

• The speaker believes Austria and the UK would not support such extradition efforts due to political ramifications for local politicians.

• Speculation arises regarding why Ukrainian authorities view the speaker as a threat; ongoing actions against them suggest persistent concern from these authorities.

Context of Criminal Prosecution

• The speaker describes absurd circumstances surrounding their criminal prosecution, which began with defiance followed by pressure through legal means.

• They argue that this sequence indicates political pressure rather than legitimate legal action related to their role as Chairman of the Constitutional Court.

Conflict with Authorities Over Anti-Corruption Reform

Background on Legal Conflicts

• The conflict peaked during fall and winter 2020 when media attention focused on the anti-corruption law invalidated by the Constitutional Court under their leadership.

• Media narratives portrayed this decision negatively, suggesting it allowed corrupt officials to evade justice while jeopardizing international relations for Ukraine.

Essence of Anti-Corruption Law Reforms

• Inquiry into why this anti-corruption reform was opposed by the Constitutional Court reveals deeper issues within governmental accountability mechanisms.

• The discussion highlights how public recognition often stems from scandals rather than constructive governance or institutional integrity.

Public Perception and Authority Pressure

• The conversation reflects on societal tendencies where public figures gain notoriety through controversy rather than merit or positive contributions.

Conflict and Power Dynamics in the Constitutional Court

The Nature of the Crisis

• The speaker emphasizes that the ongoing situation is not a constitutional crisis but rather a "crisis of power," highlighting how media sensationalism has distorted public perception.

• There is no conflict with authorities; actions have remained within legal boundaries, yet there are concerns about governmental attempts to undermine the Constitutional Court.

Allegations of Manipulation

• The speaker suggests that the government aimed to dismantle the Constitutional Court through public opinion manipulation, potentially leading to revolutionary changes.

• A specific law regarding lustration was used as a trap to provoke public outrage against the court, which could have led to its overthrow.

Misrepresentation of Judicial Decisions

• The decision regarding e-declarations was misrepresented by media outlets, suggesting it absolved corrupt officials from accountability when it actually addressed broader constitutional issues.

• Pressure from external entities, particularly from NACP's leadership, influenced judicial proceedings and created an environment of intimidation for judges.

Judicial Independence Under Threat

• Faced with significant pressure, the court opted to split cases into manageable parts while maintaining its authority and independence in decision-making.

• A key ruling found that checks on e-declarations were unconstitutional unless regulated through agreements between branches of government.

Presidential Authority and Legal Boundaries

• President Zelensky's call for resignation followed controversial decisions made by the Constitutional Court; however, his actions were deemed unlawful by Ukraine's Supreme Court.

• Questions arise regarding how such presidential overreach occurred despite clear constitutional guidelines outlining executive powers.

Legal Implications of Presidential Actions

• The discussion reveals systemic issues within presidential advisement processes that led to unconstitutional decrees being signed without proper legal basis.

Judicial Overreach and Presidential Legitimacy in Ukraine

The Impact of the Annulment Decree

• The annulment decree affects judges, including Kasmenin, indicating a potential overreach of presidential powers. The President's public statement suggests an implied dismissal of judges despite the decree not explicitly stating so.

• A logical sequence of decrees reveals gross violations of the Ukrainian Constitution, particularly regarding the removal and dismissal of Constitutional Court judges, which is solely within their jurisdiction.

Questions on Presidential Legitimacy

• The discussion raises concerns about the legality of the President's continued power amidst ongoing elections. There is ambiguity surrounding whether his position remains legitimate without electoral processes.

• Despite martial law being imposed, it does not legally suspend presidential elections. This challenges common perceptions about martial law's implications for democratic processes.

Understanding Martial Law

• Clarification on martial law indicates it is meant to address threats rather than invasions. It involves preparations for potential conflict but should not halt electoral processes.

• Legal definitions are crucial; without declaring war formally, legal actions tied to wartime conditions become complicated under current circumstances.

Potential Criminal Implications for Leadership

• Discussion shifts to whether actions taken by President Zelensky could lead to criminal charges based on public awareness and legal frameworks governing crime registration.

• For a criminal case to be initiated against a president, specific criteria must be met as defined by law enforcement agencies; currently, he enjoys immunity from prosecution.

Constitutional Court's Role and Land Law Controversy

• The speaker emphasizes that there is no "conflict" with authorities but rather a duty to uphold constitutional integrity. Recent land laws have sparked submissions questioning their compliance with constitutional articles.

Persecution of the Constitutional Court

Pressure from Authorities

• The speaker indicates that the authorities had a different directive, suggesting a systematic persecution of the Constitutional Court.

• Despite ongoing cases, there was no direct instruction on land issues; however, it remained under constant scrutiny by authorities.

• The speaker emphasizes that for Ukraine, land is considered a national treasure, unlike other resources such as gas or oil.

Interactions with Government Officials

• Fedor Venislavsky acted as an intermediary between the Constitutional Court and the President’s Office, often conveying how decisions should be made.

• The head of the Constitutional Court discusses personal involvement in corrupt practices but asserts he did not comply with these demands.

Conflict and Independence

• The speaker describes becoming unpredictable to the President's Office due to his refusal to compromise the court's integrity.

• During meetings with Andrey Yermak and Arsen Avakov, discussions about resignation occurred post-land law adoption but were unrelated to its review.

Resignation Demands

• The speaker sought clarity on accusations against him during meetings where resignation was discussed but found no legal basis for guilt.

• Although pressured to resign through media channels rather than direct communication from the President, he felt politically unaccountable.

Impact on Judicial Functionality

• There was speculation about whether pressure could lead to favorable decisions from the Constitutional Court; however, this was dismissed by the speaker.

• Current inactivity within the court is noted due to expiring terms of judges and lack of new appointments leading to dysfunction.

Legitimacy Concerns

• The role of the Constitutional Court in confirming presidential legitimacy is highlighted; without its functionality, debates around legitimacy remain subjective opinions.

Dismantling Oversight: The Role of Ivan Bakanov

Purpose and Nature of Oversight

• The speaker questions the purpose behind dismantling and disorganizing the Constitutional Court, particularly under the oversight of Ivan Bakanov, head of the Security Service of Ukraine.

• It is noted that national security issues relevant to the court were raised, indicating a form of oversight by Bakanov, although specifics remain unclear.

Allegations and National Security Concerns

• The speaker discusses how national security concerns in Ukraine have historically been used to justify political persecution, citing personal experiences as a victim.

• A document signed by Bakanov for the National Security and Defense Council (NSDC) accused him and others of undermining national security; it was described as lacking coherence or reasoning.

Judicial Response and Corruption Claims

• The Supreme Court ruled that a presidential decree regarding dismissal was not valid; this decision highlighted issues surrounding former Chairman Stanislav Shevchuk's comments on judicial activities being influenced by external forces.

• Shevchuk’s assessment is questioned due to his own corruption allegations leading to his dismissal from the Constitutional Court.

Threatening Circumstances and Provocations

• An assistant to Bakanov warned the speaker about potential consequences if he did not resign quickly, suggesting an atmosphere of intimidation during his tenure.

• Following a significant decision made on November 20, events escalated rapidly leading up to January 19 when access to his workplace was barred.

Suspicion of Evidence Planting

• The speaker speculates about possible provocations involving planted evidence at his country house, particularly concerning Russian passports or money.

• A security team sent to check on potential tampering faced obstacles that led them to believe evidence may have already been removed before their arrival.

Internal Security Issues

• Changes in office seals by a head security guard raised suspicions about internal sabotage; surveillance devices were later discovered in that room.

Critique on Anti-Corruption Reforms

Constitutional Court Decisions and U.S. Diplomatic Engagement

Constitutional Amendments and Judicial Authority

• The speaker clarifies their stance against merging judicial bodies, referencing a 2019 situation where the President and Parliament proposed constitutional amendments to grant the President unilateral appointment powers over NABU and State Bureau heads.

• The Constitutional Court ruled these proposals impermissible, emphasizing that such measures would lead to a consolidation of power.

Diplomatic Discussions with U.S. Officials

• A meeting occurred between the speaker and Kristina Kvien, then acting ambassador, regarding various issues; however, they did not discuss pressures on the judiciary.

• The ambassador expressed frustration over unclear decisions from the Constitutional Court, particularly concerning rulings on illegal enrichment.

Legal Framework and Constitutional Compliance

• The speaker argues that unconstitutional laws cannot exist within a state framework; even laws passed during crises must eventually align with constitutional order.

• There was no discussion about blocking presidential appointments for NABU investigators during the meeting with Kvien; instead, they focused on broader reform concerns.

Sanctions Imposed by U.S. Authorities

• The conversation concluded positively with a proposal to establish two working groups—one in the embassy and one in the court—to address contentious laws related to reforms funded from abroad.

• Despite this positive engagement, sanctions were later announced against the speaker by the U.S. Department of State in 2021.

Clarification on Sanction Details

• The speaker highlights that while sanctions were reported against them, there are no records of economic sanctions imposed by the Treasury Department; only statements exist regarding actions taken by the State Department.

• They suggest that misinformation may have influenced these decisions, noting how media sensationalized their status as "former Chairman" despite being current at that time.

Allegations of Corruption

• The rationale for sanctions included accusations of bribery without explicit evidence or criminal cases against them throughout their career as a judge or investigator.

Discussion on Legal Conflicts and Influence

Allegations Against Portnov

• The speaker references a Ministry of Finance report from mid-2019, alleging that Andrey Portnov conspired with a high-ranking Ukrainian official to manipulate the country's legal institutions for personal gain.

• The speaker expresses a lack of partnership with Portnov, indicating significant differences and suggesting that their relationship is adversarial.

Current Judicial Influence

• Questions arise about Portnov's alleged influence over Oleg Tatarov, deputy head of the President's Office, particularly in light of recent court rulings favoring him.

• The speaker deflects inquiries about discussing Portnov’s influence on the judicial system, stating that such information is already available in media reports.

Personal Conflict and Persecution

• The speaker acknowledges being persecuted by forces associated with Portnov but refrains from detailing how this persecution manifests.

• Reflecting on his decision to leave Ukraine in March 2022, he mentions pressure related to family circumstances and ongoing government troubles.

Resignation Under Pressure

• The speaker discusses feeling compelled to consider resignation due to the war context but emphasizes his belief that fighting for rights was secondary to national concerns.

• He highlights mistrust towards authorities who might strip him of immunity through resignation, citing examples of others who have suffered similar fates.

Authority and Power Dynamics

• The discussion shifts to the nature of power; the speaker argues that true authority requires fulfilling obligations made during negotiations.

• He reflects on how individuals often find themselves imprisoned despite agreements made with authorities, emphasizing distrust in these relationships.

Constitutional Court Legitimacy

• The speaker describes attempts by authorities to undermine his position as Chairman of the Constitutional Court by ignoring necessary legal protocols regarding judges' immunity.

• He recalls an interaction with Novikov, a prosecutor who signed an indictment against him, suggesting it could lead to negative consequences for Novikov himself.

Ongoing Claims of Chairmanship

• Despite claims from the President regarding dismissal, the speaker maintains he has not completed his term as Chairman and believes constitutional guarantees still apply.

Legal Struggles and Political Pressures

Background of Legal Challenges

• The speaker reflects on a lack of authority from a certain individual, which prevented unlawful reinstatement after appealing to the Supreme Court. Following this appeal, they faced 15 searches related to their case.

• The speaker confirms that these searches occurred in Ukraine and were directed at relatives and friends, indicating ongoing pressure despite the official end of a nine-year term.

Extradition Request and Court Proceedings

• An extradition request was sent to Austria's Ministry of Justice; however, there was no attempt to arrest the speaker based on this request.

• Austria held a court hearing regarding the extradition but ultimately refused it, with prosecutors halting criminal prosecution against the speaker.

Supreme Court Rulings and Appeals

• A Supreme Court decision ruled in favor of the speaker, declaring President Zelensky's actions unlawful. However, this ruling has not been implemented within Ukraine.

• The speaker appealed to President Zelensky for restoration of rights based on this ruling but received only a formal response allowing further appeals.

Constitutional Guarantees and European Court Involvement

• The speaker emphasizes that their nine-year term is not just an arithmetic figure but a constitutional guarantee that should be restored if interrupted unlawfully.

• If the Supreme Court refuses their appeal, they plan to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights concerning damage to professional reputation.

Sanctions Imposed by NSDC

• Shifting focus from personal issues, the discussion highlights abuses of power by President Zelensky through sanctions imposed without proper legal basis against citizens.

• The speaker describes being sanctioned alongside family members without any criminal cases or evidentiary support, raising concerns about rights infringements.

Legality and Implications of Domestic Sanctions

• There is debate among lawyers regarding whether Ukrainian law permits sanctions against its own citizens; many argue such actions are unacceptable given available legal recourse for justice.

• The imposition of sanctions internally undermines due process as individuals are deprived of proving innocence while facing accusations without judicial review.

Judicial Control and Political Power in Ukraine

The Intertwining of Government Powers

• The Supreme Court lacks precedent for judicial decisions, indicating a significant shift in power dynamics within the government. The President’s Office has established control over various sectors, including a politically motivated Bureau of Investigation.

• Individuals convicted by lower courts face stigma and potential imprisonment, impacting their civil rights regardless of future Supreme Court rulings on their cases.

• The Constitutional Court is non-functional; while constitutional complaints can be filed, there are no courts available to address these issues. This situation reflects the pressures faced by the Supreme Court from governmental authorities.

Legitimacy and Religious Freedom

• Discussion arises regarding the government's control over all three branches of power and its implications for President Zelensky's legitimacy. Concerns about state interference in religious matters are highlighted.

• A controversial law banning the Ukrainian Orthodox Church raises questions about the separation of church and state, suggesting that government actions infringe upon personal religious beliefs.

Genocide Claims Against Orthodoxy

• The speaker asserts that actions against Orthodoxy in Ukraine amount to genocide against Ukrainian people, particularly Orthodox believers. This claim is supported by international perspectives on maintaining peace among different faith communities.

• There is an expectation that legal frameworks will eventually correct current injustices; however, existing institutions lack independence to enact such changes.

Personal Reflections on Safety and Return

• The speaker expresses intent to return to Ukraine post-war but emphasizes safety as a primary concern. Questions arise about learning German amidst political turmoil.

Fear Among Authorities

• Authorities' fear of repercussions influences their behavior during interrogations. Despite demands for adherence to legal codes, there is resistance from prosecutors who seem aware that they may face accountability if circumstances change.