bruceq

18:11 With final speech in the debate in favor lawyer Omelchenko. Lawyer Omelchenko: Dear court! Dear participants in the process! Speaking on this matter, I have repeatedly appealed to the authoritative sources of law. Maintaining its position, I pointed out that the requirements of Russian Ministry of Justice violated the Basic Law of the Russian Federation, the provisions of the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. 18:13 Lawyer Omelchenko: But I would like also to draw attention to the existence of the law, which is above it. In democratic countries, this law is given a special place. So part of the modern legal doctrine of Anglo-American law for almost three hundred years, is the postulate of William Blackstone, "The law of nature, which is the same age of humanity and dictate to God himself, of course, superior to all others on compulsory execution. It is compulsory everywhere on earth, in all countries and at all times: if human laws contradict it, they lose their power. " In addition to the nature of the law - unwritten law of God, there is also "the law of revelation" in the Bible God's Law: "On these two pillars, on the law of nature and the revelation of the law, based on all human laws; that is, we can not allow human laws contradict them. " 18:14 Lawyer Omelchenko: On the need to obey the law of nature, as history shows, can forget the person with power, in totalitarian states. For example, in Nazi Germany, many officials believed they were just following the law of their country. That is the position they held at the Nuremberg trials. However, the tribunal proceeded from the general duty of every person to obey the law of nature, the laws of humanity, the law of conscience. This law is a fundamental source of international law. But because he was forgotten in Nazi Germany, he had to be reminded by means of the principles - principles of Nuremberg. The first: "Any person who commits an act which constitutes, according to international law, a crime is responsible for it and shall be punished." Second: "The fact that internal law does not set penalties for any act which constitutes, according to international law, a crime, does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law." In this case, Principle VI is a crime against humanity, extermination and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, or persecutions on political or religious grounds. 18:15 The lawyer Lew: It is obvious that in this process without recourse to natural law it is impossible to make a lawful and fair decision, because even the best laws to properly apply. First, as shown by my colleagues and agree with what the administrative claimant, persecution of religious association of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia due to the fact that they are spreading the true teachings in the Bible God's laws among the Russian people. Earlier, I showed that this behavior - is a simple realization of the rights to freedom of religion, freedom of opinion, freedom of association, guaranteed by articles of the Constitution, the Convention and the International Covenant. But you must admit that from the standpoint of the rights of a natural person is impossible to justify the persecution, advocating the need to live by the principle: "You must love your neighbor as yourself", even if he says that he strongly disagrees with anyone who does not believe is true.

18:03 Novak plaintiff calls extremists peace-loving citizens. Hitler at the time vowed to destroy Jehovah's Witnesses for refusing to show extremism, and the Ministry of Justice today asks to hang on Jehovah's Witnesses extremist label. In this case, the charges are humiliated Jehovah's Witnesses, as they are accused of lying. We do not and can not be a reason not to trust the members of the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, bringing to administrative responsibility, that claim is not distributed extremist materials, but were victims of fraud. We believe Jehovah's Witnesses not only because they provided one hundred percent proof of fraud, but also because they are highly moral people living in harmony with the biblical commandment: "In everything we want to conduct ourselves honestly." Charges of lying dehumanizing Witnesses. physiological studies have been conducted in relation to Jehovah's Witnesses. Studies have established: Jehovah's Witnesses are telling the truth, which is quite natural for them. 18:07 Novakov: From the plaintiff's argument that anyone, and it occurs in large quantities, can come to the place, where the worship of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, to ask or get literature from FSEM. But what is surprising is that this information, neither the FSB nor employees CPE for some reason can not provide documented evidence of such transfer (on video and audio). There are currently no hidden audio and video recording, depicting it, despite the fact that the police carried out an ORM and might produce a hidden recording of the relevant facts, if they were. At the hearing, it was found in the absence of evidence of objective administrative plaintiff fixing or other documented evidence of transmission of Jehovah's Witnesses literature from FSEM, for example, on the video. 18:09 Novak However, the Administrative Center is ready to provide a wealth of documented and documented evidence to the contrary. The attack on Jehovah's Witnesses in the form of recognition of religious associations as extremist totally unfair. Therefore, we ask the court to make a fair determination of the appeal of the case: to prevent the "judicial murder" of the right to freedom of conscience and religion for hundreds of thousands of believers Russian citizens.

17:50 Performance in the pleadings representative Novakova. The representative focused on the analysis of the so-called "new facts" extremist activity, which allegedly took place in the year after the issuance of the warning. These "facts" were clearly rigged. 17:54 The courts proceeded from the presumption of guilt of local religious organizations, said Nowak. So, if in the service building there is forbidden books, the court decisions were based solely on the assumption that the book belongs to the organization. 17:58 Nowak's speech raises the question of whether the doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses listed in the Federal Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" signs of extremism, and calls on whether to carry out extremist activities? Does the Administrative Center for the purpose carrying out extremist activity? Directed to that doctrine of Jehovah's Witnesses? Novakov shows that in this case there is no not only the subjective side of extremist activity Administrative Center (intent, goal), but there is not even the objective side (statements of intentions, calls, specific actions).

Top five current news items from Russia Tass News 4 of 5 all about Jehovah's Witnesses !!! MOST READ Now Today This week 1 Jehovah's Witnesses lawyer asks Russian Supreme Court to question religious expert 2 Everything you need to know about Jehovah’s Witnesses 3 Lavrov slams US seizure of Moscow's diplomatic assets as being ‘robbed in broad daylight’ 4 Court ruling to weaken Jehovah’s Witnesses influence in Russia, cleric says 5 Expert warns Russia’s ban on Jehovah’s Witnesses can spark backlash in EU More:http://tass.com/

17:45 The representative of Ax: Before us is a decision of the court of first instance of the liquidation of the Administrative Center and 395 other legal entities - the local religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses. But none of the local religious organizations was not attracted to participate in the case, did not act in neither the defendant nor the interested party. Are you familiar with these court decisions? I'm in my practice are not met. Even the unions are not legal entities, in the case of the matter in court to ban their activities, the law obliges to look for in different locations, to publish information about the court case on the official websites of courts and state bodies. For what? To ensure that such an association the right of citizens to judicial protection. And we have 395 registered state entities. Moreover, they submitted official statements to the court to intervene. However, all of the statements, and then the appeals with the aim to join the case and defend themselves, to defend his good name, to defend their right to exist, were rejected by the court of first instance with a single duty wording: "Your rights are not affected!" How can this be understood? Their rights are "not affected", but they are eliminated by the court as extremist, their activities are prohibited, but "rights are not affected." Where is the justice here? Legality? Conscience? This decision of the court can neither understand nor accept. But this monstrous mistake can still be corrected. And you, dear court can do today. 17:47 The representative of Ax: Extremism Witnesses extremism remains on paper, painted extremism, virtual, far-fetched. In this case, a natural question arises: whether extremism is without consequences? Could it be that someone carries out extremist activity, but no casualties there, the consequences of not? Can there be extremism in the form of inaction? The Court of First Instance finds that it can. Russian legislation and common sense suggests otherwise. 17:48 The representative of Ax: You, dear court, that you are here and can now eliminate this injustice and unfair to the hundreds of thousands of Russian citizens, to restore their good name, to strengthen the credibility of the law on countering extremism, clearly shows the difference between these extremists and extremists, painted on paper. We hope that the court has the courage to do it and make fair and impartial decisions based on the law and the gift of God - the human conscience.

17:42 The debate begins representative ax. The representative of Ax: Is it possible to eliminate the Russian legal entity in the court without him? Ie without the involvement of the person as a defendant? Is this true? Legal? The Court of First Instance states that is possible. What is true and quite legally. Yes, not one, but just 395 in one fell swoop. And what does the law say? And what does the common sense? And that tells you a conscience? The law says that the liquidation of the legal entity in court is possible only if the person brought to court as a defendant, since solved the problem of the existence of this person. The law says that if the court decided the matter without the involvement of the cause of the liquidated legal entity, the decision is subject to unconditional cancellation. Why? It violates the fundamental right to a fair trial, to judicial protection. 17:43 The representative of Ax: What tells us the common sense? Clearly, if you judge, you have a right to at least participate in the trial, to defend themselves by all legal means. Otherwise, it turns out in the Russian proverb: "Without me, married me." Finally, it tells you a conscience? A conscience says, that any court without the involvement of one judge and want to eliminate this unfair trial. Jesus judged and condemned the Sanhedrin - the Jewish Supreme Court. It was an unfair trial. Illegal. But even he did not dare to judge Jesus without his participation. A Court of First Instance decided to do so.

17:38 Lawyer little wife: I am in the court of first instance has already said, and I want to repeat here that this happened in the history of our state only once - shortly after the October Revolution. In 1918, based on the decree of the Council of People's Commissars of all religious organizations were denied the right of legal entities, all Orthodox churches and all the property of religious organizations were confiscated. These actions are the State recognized its mistake. But for some reason now, 100 years later, the Court of First Instance repeats that mistake, but now Jehovah's Witnesses. 17:39 Lawyer little wife: Fact rehabilitation of thousands of Jehovah's Witnesses in our country as victims of political repression shows that judicial mistakes in the past were expensive millions of innocent citizens of our country. You, dear court, there is a possibility, and the powers today to correct a judicial error, to cancel the decision of the trial court. 17:40 Lawyer little wife: Can there be a legitimate court decision, which eliminates 395 local religious organizations without their participation, not even giving them the opportunity to be heard and to defend himself in court? Can there be a legitimate decision to recognize the extremist entities in actions that do not have signs of extremism? Can there be a legal decision, the consequences of which translate into acts of violence, vandalism, hate people, which until recently were treated tolerantly, but now with hatred because they are the Russian Federation Supreme Court outlawed? 17:42 Summing up the debate, lawyer little wife: "Of course, each of us has the right to have their point of view in relation to any religious denomination or religion in general. But no one has the right to use the law to persecute dissidents. This persecution for the faith we can either stop, cancel the decision of the court of first instance, or ignite if left in place. Let your conscience, dear Judge, will tell you how to act. "

17:30 Little wife: A lot of people outside the walls of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, and millions of citizens all over the world for today's decision will be to judge the entire justice system in Russia today - on its justice, its impartiality and its independence from any influential persons and public authorities. Why? Because organizations are judged today, belong to the religion known around the world. This religion is known for its followers seek to live according to the commandments of Jesus Christ, in the Bible. They are under no circumstances do not take up arms, not to interfere in politics, does not aim to overthrow the government, trying to show love to all people, regardless of their religion, nationality or social status. Alien to them all that the Law "On Countering Extremist Activity" called extremism. 17:31 Lawyer little wife: All the civilized nations of the world are fighting against extremism, because it is well understood the essence of this phenomenon and its dangers. But no country in the world of Jehovah's Witnesses do not equate to the extremists. And Jehovah's Witnesses around the world profess the same doctrine, based on the Bible. In any country of the world, these Christians worship Jehovah God, in any country, a role model for them is Jesus Christ, who did nothing but good. Jehovah's Witnesses anywhere in the world is a source of wisdom, the same Bible. Therefore, if in their behavior, words and actions manifest extremism, it would have been seen throughout the world. But Jehovah's Witnesses around the world do not have the reputation of extremists. And in our country do not have such a reputation. 17:33 Lawyer little wife: Yes, in our country, people have different experiences about Jehovah's Witnesses, however as well as representatives of other religions. God Himself has given people freedom of choice. And under our laws we must respect the choice of the other person. Someone may not understand why Jehovah's Witnesses as strictly adhere to the biblical standards of morality. Someone may not like their active preaching. Someone may disagree with the way Jehovah's Witnesses understand the Bible. But none of the people, Jehovah's Witnesses do not associate with extremists. The history of Jehovah's Witnesses has proved that extremism and Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs - it is absolutely incompatible concepts. 17:35 Lawyer little wife: Why, then, the Court of First Instance 20 April 2017 made this unprecedented for modern Russia's decision - immediately forbade the existence of all legal entities of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia, and there were 396? One reason - the wrong use of the anti-extremist legislation. Even the distinguished representative of the Ministry today incorrectly cited the law, "the superiority of one religion over another." In fact, in such there is no law. There is promotion of human superiority over the man on the grounds of religion.

"little wife" is googles translation for our lawyer Zhenkov

17:20 Novakov selectively representative drew the court's attention to the materials of the case in the 38th and 39th volumes of the case. Documents show false accusations of "extremism" against Jehovah's Witnesses. For example, in the case incorporates a wide range of documents, in which people who spoke "witness" against believers report that gave his testimony against the believers under pressure of law enforcement bodies, without warning about the responsibility for knowingly false denunciation. 17:27 Court turns to the debate. The first speaks little wife.

Public statement of the Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia February 24, 2017 Trying to complete ban Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia Fulfilling the current legislation on countering extremist activity, centralized religious organization "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" makes a public statement that has no relation to the grounds of extremism and events described in the judicial acts on administrative liability, as well as the recognition local extremist religious organization of Jehovah's Witnesses, entering into its structure. Religious organization "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" does not charge local religious organizations within its structure, as well as individual believers distribute, store or otherwise use literature after its inclusion in the federal list of extremist materials. The program of worship of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia does not include a study of informational materials that are prohibited by law. Religious organization "Administrative Center of Jehovah's Witnesses in Russia" does not agree with the actions of individuals who bring in liturgical publications of Jehovah's Witnesses building, included in the federal list of extremist materials. For each fact planted the banned literature believers seek a statement to law enforcement agencies to prosecute those responsible.

17:00 It disclosed a public statement of the Administrative Center, spread in February 2017. Disclosed religious studies expert help of Jehovah's Witnesses.

16:50 After the break, the court asks the Ministry of Justice representative to express their opinion about the announcement of the case, which asks the respondent. The Ministry of Justice objected. Court decides to read out some of the statements of the case file. 16:54 The court read out the conclusions of the legal expert report, which analyzes the rules of anti-extremist legislation, namely, the concept of "structural unit" in relation to religious organizations. The conclusions arrived at by the experts, consist in the fact that from the point of view of the law, local religious organizations can not be attributed to the structural unit of the centralized organizations.

"strongly objected" apparently one of the three Judges has an attitude against us. no surprise here

16:20 Questions from the court to the representative of the Ministry of Justice no. The Court proceeds to study the case materials. Representatives of the defendants asked to announce the number of the case, but the judge Manohina strongly objected: "We have not got this thing yesterday. We were prepared for a long time. And with all these documents familiar. " 16:29 Declared the 20-minute break.

Court has no questions for the MOJ ! 20 min break

wow 5 hours from our lawyers and 20 min from MOJ. Really! They didn't even try to refute anything from us stating its a done deal. I guess we will soon see if this is a kangaroo court or not.

16:19 Concluding his speech, the representative of the Ministry of Justice requested the court's decision be upheld and the appeal dismissed.

outside court from earlier:

in other words : Close relationship between the AC and LROs prove that they are one organization, not separate entities So my wife and myself have a close relationship so according to them we are one flesh literally and not separate entities !

16:00 Borisov leads the facts of interaction of the Administrative Center and local religious organizations. According to the Ministry of Justice, it must point to a single structure, the integrity and identity of religious organizations.

This is from before hearing

15:45 The representative of the Administrative Center Kalin upheld the appeal and explain the lawyers. The right to present his case transferred to the representative of the Ministry of Justice Borisova. 15:50 The Ministry of Justice considers that a court decision banning Jehovah's Witnesses had been lawful and justified. Borisov says that every religion has the right to spread their beliefs and attitudes, however, the wording should not offend the followers of other religions.

15:35 Omelchenko indicates that there has been a violation of the right to freedom of religion, expression and association, as guaranteed by Art. Art. 9, 10, 11 of the Convention. For example, he drew attention to the requirement of international law that state intervention should be provided by law. In particular, the law must be certain and its application foreseeable. Omelchenko on the materials of the case shows that the use of anti-extremist legislation Jehovah's Witnesses is uncertain and unpredictable. 15:40 International law requires that state interference pursued a legitimate aim and was necessary in a democratic society. Omelchenko notes that the 100-year history not recorded any extremist manifestations on the part of Jehovah's Witnesses. But after this decision, a huge number of believers suffered groundless violation of their rights.