2008 m. vasario 3 d., sekmadienis

Protection of human rights


Document Nr.1

To: Speaker of the Seimas of the Republic of Lithuanian

Viktoras Muntianas

Inscription: „We received on

24 08 2006” (signature)

Algimantas Matulevičius

24 August 2006

Zenonas Jurgelevičius

Res. at Jaunimo 28 Ringaudai

4324 Kaunas District

Request

Re: Restoration of Justice

Dear Speaker of Seimas,

I address you personally because in order to eliminate violations of law and human rights that are being committed in post-soviet Lithuania – RL Seimas must perform the following actions:

1. To inspect the correctness of the facts presented by me;

2. To pass new legal acts – the legal norms of which would eliminate the „legal basis“ for further implementation of law and human rights violation and would enable to restore justice.

As persons who headed RL Seimas before you hushed the information presented by me and in this way tolerated the law and human rights violations presented in my letters, I address you and expect that you will not tolerate those law and human rights violations.

Since the restoration of independent state of Lithuania (11 March 1990) while working in various human rights defence organizations I have drawn attention to the non-correspondence of explanations, made by official LR persons, of present legal situation to reality.

1. In post-soviet Lithuanian democracy is being created following the so-called American type of democracy. That means that legal system of such democracy is being created following the legal experience of mankind generalized in the works of English lawyer and philosopher J.Locke who had lived since 1632 to 1704.

J.Locke explains that states are not created in an empty place without people, the territory in which they have settled, language in which they are speaking, material values which have been created by their work and moral and legal provisions they acknowledge. J.Locke explains that a state is a public agreement of the people aimed at organizing order and liquidation of vagueness of natural law (when the very victim is implementing justice). By their change with clear and equal to all laws and objectivity. In the established state the supreme power belongs to the law to which all executive power is inferior and the people is the publisher of laws and only after that the executor of those laws. J.Locke equals the state to trusteeship which is first of all devoted to defending the interests of the trustee and not devoted to the implementation of guardian‘s interests (not aimed at implementation of authorities representatives interests – Z.J.). So the representatives elected by the people who are performing the role of a guardian first of all have their duties and only after that they enjoy rights. People who have elected them are entitled at any point in time to revoke these trustees if (in the opinion of the people) they perform their duties improperly and change them to new ones, more suitable trustees. J.Locke proves that after creation of state the laws ensuring the citizen ownership rights are not invented anew, as the principal aim of the creation of a state is the defence of its citizens lives, health and principal rights and freedoms. J.Locke bases the ownership right in such way: „as every person is his own property, the fruits of his work are his property as well“ (or the movables and real estate acquired for these labour fruits monetary expression-Z.J.) J.Locke states that „Labour creates property and establishes the value of this property“. He emphasizes: „As protection of property is the primary and principal aim due to which the state is created the state officials are not entitled to take away from anybody the property belonging to him against his will“.

The consequence of action of such legal system ought to be the phenomenon which in the world is called „The American dream“. In his interview to magazine „The Atlantic Monthly“ analyst Ted Halstead presented the following description of „the American dream“: „Since the very beginning the principal aim of USA was the creation of society based on opportunities realization and wisdom power. Everything must submit to the following logic. You are working tensely; following all the rules of the game you were offered and moving forward. That is a dream: everybody‘s rising upwards and creation of society with a wide medium class“.

In post-soviet Lithuania after the restoration of independence everything occurred in a different way. The former Soviet nomenclature proclaimed all the real estate which was to be inherited by the people and the state property (depending to all citizens) to be the state (bureaucrats) ownership and... started to share it to its advocates. The criteria of clever behaviour which were accepted as the basis of Civil law in all the civilized world in post-soviet Lithuania law for more than ten years were „forgotten“ at all and were not in force. For the seizure of private and public property implemented at that time they are not in force at present as well. So one can ask completely groundedly what such self-will of former Soviet nomenclature has in common with creation of American democracy based on clever behaviour, equalling citizen property to sacred immunity. It is obvious that in its legal meaning these society ways of life are completely contradictory.

2. To implement seizure of an alien property in practice the former Soviet nomenclature had to present some legal basing of their actions or at least create an image of such basing for Lithuanian people and world society. The lie on scienter existed in Soviet times universal land nationalization and the scienter necessity to cancel the consequences of that nationalization by a special law became such an image. Already at the end of 1996 I have proved in documents the legal illegitimacy of that lie of governing officials. Exhaustive information about it is in my article enclosed to this request „Who is Who in Post-soviet Lithuania” parts 1, 2, and 3. Without taking into account the revelation and publication of the illegitimate actions and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (which is valid in Lithuania and have superior legal power for the rights of RL domestic laws defending the Lithuanian citizen’s rights) the authorities of post-soviet RL till present day implements (following false basis) discriminative „laws” passed by itself, permitting the seizure of the citizen property. Is such seizure of alien property also an inseparable part of democratic way of life?

3. Tuning in the seizure of alien property the executors of legitimately baseless special RL laws in localities often do not respect the limitations of seizure of alien property established by those special laws. A bright example of such self-will and complete impunity for it is the actions of land possession services (part of the information on open violations of law in force performed by land possessors is in my article „Who is Who in Soviet Lithuania” part 4 and its continuation appended to this request. In the same place there are the copies of the documents proving the illegitimacy of those actions) of former Kaunas District Noreikiškės rural district (at present Ringaudai and Academy district elder district). There is also information about the fact that the officials of pre-court investigation institutions do not react to information about the specific crimes in RL presented by me and do not start the investigation of criminal action. Are the employees of those institutions really engaged in law enforcement? The former imperfect Soviet law would evaluate such behaviour as the concealing of a crime...

4. It is impossible to defend from such Post-soviet authorities’ self-will in Republic of Lithuania courts. I, as one of the representatives of society on 9 June 2006 in RL Judicial Council sitting made a short report about the fact that in certain cases the courts do not perform their direct duty to perform justice. I registered my „Request” text after the council sitting in Judicial Council, reg. No. 85 (I enclose a copy to this request).

Shortly I received a reply No. 01-E2-7191 to my request signed by Judicial Council Secretary A.Milinis of 04 07 2006 (I enclose a copy). In this reply the Judicial Council emphasizes that when hearing a case the Judges obey only the law. I was just asking the Judicial Council to perform (follow) the legal norms of supreme legal power valid in RL. However, judging by the content of the reply – Judicial Council is not at all going to follow the requirements of legal norms of the supreme legal power (obligatory to it, valid in RL).

So I am completely reasonably asking: can justice be defended in such courts at all?

By the facts I have presented it is obvious that the Republic of Lithuania at present is still not creating a democracy as of an American model as in post-soviet RL the seizure of real estate of the citizens is still continuing. So I request you, dear Speaker of Seimas, to establish a working group in RL Seimas for the investigation of the negative phenomena I have named and initiated passing of decisions necessary for cancelling of these phenomena negative consequences.

If obscurity appears during your familiarization with the material I have presented I am ready to present additional documents and additional explanations.

List of enclosed documents:

1. A copy of article „Who is Who in Lithuania“.

2. A copy of my „Request“ for RL Judicial Council (reg. No. 85) of 9 June 2006

3. A copy of reply of Judicial Council Secretary A.Milinis No. 01-E2-7191 of 04 07 2006

Zenonas Jurgelevičius (signature)



Enclosed Document Nr.2

Stamp: "JUDICIAL COUNCIL
RECEIVED
09 June 2006
No. 85".

To: Chairman of the Judicial Council of Lithuania

Resp. Virgilijus Valancius

9 June 2006

Zenonas Jurgelevicius
Res. at Jaunimo 28 Ringaudai
4324 Kaunas Reg.

PETITION

For 16 years I have been engaged in active human right defence activity in various public organizations: "Lithuanian Landowners Union", "Lithuanian Human Right Protection Association", "Lithuanian United Nation Association", "Lithuanian Centre for Human Rights ", "Lithuanian Sajudis" and "Lithuanian Person Authorized Representative Society". I specialise in protection of land ownership rights which were acquired by the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania until 15 June 1940 (the beginning of occupation of Lithuania by Soviet Union). Doing this work I have noticed significant internal contradictions of laws of the Republic of Lithuania that regulate ownership rights of Lithuanian citizens. These contradictions result in the fact that the provisions of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which are of superior legal power, are denied by domestic laws of the Republic of Lithuania. I have exhaustively and reasonably considered this problem in my article "Kas yra Kas posovietineje Lietuvoje" (Who is Who in Post-Soviet Lithuania) published in daily "Lietuvos Aidas" of Autumn, 2005. At present the text of mentioned article is accessible for freely in rubric "Zmogaus teises" (Human Rights) existing in information portal http://www.straipsniai.lt/.

Courts of the Republic of Lithuania until present moment apply "Law on Restoration of the Republic of Lithuania Citizens Ownership Rights to Remaining Real Estate" No. VIII-359 of 1 July 1997, which was passed when the Art.1 of the First Protocol of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms was already in force in the Republic of Lithuania and which was passed by RL Seimas (Parliament) on the basis of false information and openly contradicts the mentioned Convention. This means that the courts (judges) of post-Soviet Lithuania do not take into account the continuance of LR citizens ownership rights which have never been cancelled and the fact that RL Seimas had no means to pass "special" law of 1 July 1997 without violating international obligations. That means that by practically applying the mentioned special law courts themselves constantly violate Art. 1 of the First Protocol of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as well as Art. 26 of Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969, (the Republic of Lithuania is a party to this treaty) which prohibits to deny the legal international obligations of a state by the domestic laws of that state (principle of pacta sunt servanda). Such "execution of justice" by RL courts openly contradicts the legal norms established by Art. 6 "Right to a Fair Trial" and Art. 13 "Right to an Effective Remedy" of European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. Courts of Post-Soviet RL execute not justice but open discrimination in respect of legitimate landowners, so that the former Soviet nomenclature (and its congenials) could seize alien property in post-Soviet Lithuania. Legal provisions of Art. 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms prohibits such discrimination.

The behaviour of officials of RL courts - as a state institution which must ensure justice in the state of Lithuania, raises grounded doubts whether RL courts are actually executing justice. The basis for such doubts are the following facts:

1. The coertion executed by land administrators to petty landowners to agree with legally ungrounded demands and refuse all or major part of the land ownership which is continuing for 16 years is equaled to legitimately executed land reform. However, in the world practice such behaviour is considered as corruption.

2. Soviet-occupational power in 1940 did not execute a complete land nationalization of all Lithuanian citizens (it left land up to 30 ha for eternal use of the citizens) but it rather carried out the Soviet land reform. This has been proved by the documents. Why RL courts do not acknowledge this fact and violate RL international obligations (already enumerated in this petition)?

3. RL citizens cannot defend their violated rights in post-Soviet Lithuania court since RL courts, based on domestic laws that contradict the Constitution and international laws valid in the Republic of Lithuania (Art. 56 of RL Code of Civil Process), recognize citizens as being insufficiently reasonable to be able to understand their legal situation and due to that do not let citizens at their free will to choose a person who would most properly represent their interests in court. Are the constitutional right of the citizen to have and express his opinion (see: valid RL Constitution Art.25 1, 2 and 3 parts) and constitutional right to equality and by the same to personal freedom (see: valid RL Constitution Art. 29) not denied in the most barbaric way? What human freedom can there be left to discuss if law prohibits the person to defend his freedom? Such self-will of the persons having power did not exist even during the Soviet period! How is it combined with the democratic order?

4. When courts decide cases according to the legitimately ungrounded special laws of the Republic of Lithuania which I have already named, situations when citizens lose cases due to causes regulated by procedural norms become a possibility. Dear RL Judicial Council Chairman, how is it possible to loose a case - which cannot be initiated - due to office work and regulations similar to it? That is not an execution of justice - it is a complete absurdity. So it is necessary to decide urgently: what "violations" of procedural laws and when can they be the cause of loosing a civil case in a court.

5. Don't the facts stated in the first four paragraphs of this petition suggest that in RL courts the obligation and right of the citizens to behave reasonably which is consolidated in RL Civil Code Art.1.5 is limited artificially and that determines the loss of their cases in courts?

6. (Supplementing the 5th) Can a law limit the right of a person to behave wisely and if the fact is such: should such "law" be executed?

7. Why the citizens of a state under the rule of law must defend themselves in court from the self-will of persons who abuse law? Isn't it the major function of a state to defend its citizens from internal and external self-will executors?

8. Who and when will recover the damage made (and still being made) by execution of legally groundless special laws“ to the legitimate landowners?

It is obvious that after eliminating the cases I have stated - the way to corruption carried out by state officials and their seizure of alien property would be blocked in Lithuanian state. I request the Judicial Council headed by you to consider the facts stated in this petition that prevent the RL courts from carrying out justice and take measures to eliminate them.

Zenonas Jurgelevicius
Member of Lithuanian Centre for Human Rights (signature)


Enclosed Document Nr.3

JUDICIAL COUNCIL

A. Jaksto 13-1, LT-01105 Vilnius, tel. (8 5) 268 5186, fax (8 5) 268 5187

To: Mr. Zenonas Jurgelevicius
04 07 2006 No. 01-E2-7191
Jaunimo str. 28, Ringaudai,
4324, Kaunas Region

RE: PETITION

On 12 06 2006 in Judicial Council your petition has been received in which it is indicated that a number of the Republic of Lithuania legal acts, to be precise, the Republic of Lithuania Law on the Restoration of the Ownership Rights of Citizens to the Existing Real Property, Art. 56 of the Code of Civil Process of the Republic of Lithuania which establishes persons who are able to act as representatives according to commission in court in conducting civil cases, contradict the international laws ratified by the Republic of Lithuania, among them the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamentals Freedoms and the protocols supplementing it. The courts of the Republic of Lithuania applying these law norms in conducting cases also violate the mentioned international law norms and human rights.

In accordance with the Republic of Lithuania Constitution Art. 109 part 3 the judges conducting cases listen only to the law. In Constitution Art. 110 part 1 it is indicated that a judge cannot apply a law which contradicts the Constitution. At the same time only the Constitutional Court is competent to acknowledge that a statutory act contradicts the Constitution. Subjects entitled to address the Constitutional Court regarding examination of the conformity of legal act to the provicions of the Constitution have been enumerated in Art. 106 of the Republic of Lithuania Constitution. The Judicial Council does not dispose such a right.

Secretary of the Judicial Council (signature) Albertas Milinis


Answer from Member of Seimas

Document Nr.2

MEMBER OF SEIMAS OF LITHUANIAN REPUBLIC

Code 8860529 Gedimino ave. 53, LT-01109 Vilnius Tel. (8-5) 239 67 06 Fax (8-5) 239 64 29

E-mail Algimantas.Matulevicius@lrs.lt



No. 03-14 of 31 10 2006

To your request of 24 08 2006

To: Zenonas Jurgelevičius

Jaunimo st. 28

Ringaudai Kaunas Distr.

RE: YOUR REQUEST

We are sending you the reply of Ministry of Justice to your request of 24 08 2006 regarding the opportunity of implementation of the problems you have stated.

Respectfully yours,

Member of Seimas (signature) Algimantas Matulevičius

RE: YOUR REQUEST. MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA


Document Nr.3

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA

Legal entities register. Code 188604955. Gedimino pr. 30/1, LT-01104 Vilnius. Tel. (8 5) 2662933
Fax (8 5) 262 5940. E-mail tminfo@tic.lt

Settl. Account LT267044060000269484 PubLLC SEB Vilniaus Bank, bank code 70440

To: Seimas Member Algimantas Matulevičius No. (1.23)-7R-7436 of 23 10 2006

To request of 18 09 2006

RE: YOUR REQUEST

Having considered the request of 24 08 2006 of Zenonas Jurgelevičius sent by your letter No. 03-14 of 18 09 2006 in which Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania (hereinafter Seimas) is asked to establish a working group for the investigation of Republic of Lithuania Law on the Restoration of the Ownership Rights of Citizens to the Existing Real, Republic of Lithuania Law on Land Reform or other legal acts regulating the restoration of citizen ownership rights to the existing real property, provisions legitimacy and conformity with the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania and international treaties of the Republic of Lithuania indicated by the applicant we inform that according to the Republic of Lithuania Constitution (hereinafter – Constitution) Art. 102 part 1 only the Constitutional Court is competent to decide whether the Republic of Lithuania laws and other legal acts passed by Seimas do not contradict to the Constitution.

According to Constitution Article 106 part 1 the right to address the Constitutional Court regarding the laws or other passed by Seimas legal acts correspondence to Constitution is given to Government, not less than 1/5 of all the Seimas members, also courts.

As for the opinion of the applicant that after the restoration of the independence of the Republic of Lithuania the state authorities proclaimed all the real estate inherited by the people as the property of the state we inform that Republic of Lithuania Law on the Restoration of the Ownership Rights of Citizens to the Existing Real (hereinafter Law) establishes restoration of ownership rights to the existing real property, acknowledgement of the continuation of ownership rights evaluating the formed objective public property relations.

In the preamble of the law it is emphasized that after the Republic of Lithuania Supreme Soviet – Restorational Seimas by acts of 11 March 1990 restored the independence of the Republic of Lithuania the laws enforced to us by an alien state by which the occupant authorities illegitimately seized owned real estate from the citizens of the Republic of Lithuania lost their validity and that the ownership rights acquired by the Republic of Lithuania citizens before occupation have not been cancelled and have continuance, that the restoration of continued ownership rights is based by the provision of 18 June 1991 Republic of Lithuania law „On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property“ – to Republic of Lithuania citizens the remaining real estate is returned and if there is no such opportunity – it is justly compensated for.

Attention should be drawn to the fact that Constitutional Court decided regarding many provisions of law „On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property“, and Republic of Lithuania Citizen Ownership Rights to the Existing Real Property Restoration Law correspondence to the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court in resolution of 20 06 1995 stated that the law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property“ is special., i.e. having limited validity. Its special character manifests itself first of all by the fact that it is applied not for all property relations but only for those which appear regarding ownership rights to the restoration to the nationalized or otherwise illegally communized existing real estate during the years of occupation. Secondly, it is applied not to all former owners and their descendants –Lithuanian residents, but only the former estate owners – Lithuanian citizens who correspond to the conditions established by law. By choosing limited restitution way, the aim of the establishment of the conditions and procedure of restoration of ownership rights was to take into account the changed social and legal realia, also to ensure that by restoring the rights of some persons the rights of other persons were not violated.

The Constitutional Court marked that the law “On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership to the Existing Real Property“ assists in restoring the ownership rights violated during the years of occupation, so there is no legal basis to state that by it in general the natural rights are violated (Constitution Article 18).

The Constitutional Court in resolution of 02 04 2001 stated that in the manner established by the Law the ownership rights to the existing real estate nationalized by the occupational authorities are being restored at the same time taking into account the essential social and economical, other relations related with property which took place during the period which passed since illegitimate nationalization of this property. Due to mentioned essential changes and also taking into account the real opportunities of Lithuanian state it is impossible to restore all the ownership rights violated by occupational authorities by completely returning in kind all of the remaining real estate. The Constitutional Court marked that the provision that if is not possible to return the property in kind a compensation must be awarded does not contradict the principles of property immunity and ownership right defence principles, as just compensation also ensures the restoration of ownership rights (27 May 1994, 22 December 1995, 18 June 1998 resolutions). So the fact that in the Law the real estate redemption is provided for by itself does not violate the principle of property immunity.

Regarding possible violations of legal acts by the employees of Land Possession Department we explain that according to the Law the decisions of the institutions considering citizens requests to restore the ownership rights regarding the ownership rights to the existing real estate restoration can be appealed against to court.

According to the Republic of Lithuania Constitution Art. 109 justice in the Republic of Lithuania is carried out only by courts. We explain that according to Constitution Art. 114 part 1 Seimas just like other governmental and state institutions is prohibited to interfere into the court activity in carrying out justice. We mark that court decisions legitimacy and legality are controlled only by courts of higher instance in the manner established by the laws.

Regarding possibly criminal actions of employees of Land Possession Department we inform that according to the Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 164 part 1 out-of-court investigation is carried out by out-of-court investigation officials. The public prosecutor organizes out-of-court investigation and heads it.

According to Public Prosecutor‘s Office Law Article 11 part 2 public prosecutor is independent while performing his functions and obeys only to Constitution and laws. According to Public Prosecutor‘s Office Law Art. 11 part 3 state institutions, their officials and employees are prohibited to give to Public Prosecutor‘s Office commissions or obligations not established in the laws or otherwise interfere into public prosecutors activity.

We inform that according to the Code of Criminal Procedure Art. 62 part 1 the process participants can appeal out-of-court investigation officials process actions (failure to act) and decisions to public prosecutor controlling out-of-court investigation official. If the public prosecutor refuses to satisfy the appeal his decision can be appealed against to out-of-court investigation judge.

We also inform that Republic of Lithuania is a party to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. We explain that every person is entitled to address the European Human Rights Court if he thinks that the Republic of Lithuania has violated the human rights consolidated in Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

Following the above and taking into account that the Republic of Lithuania and international legal acts establish the means of defence of person‘s ownership rights (their restoration) in the opinion of Ministry of Justice there is no necessity to form a Seimas working group to investigate the legitimacy of the circumstances indicated by the applicant. At the same time we mark that it is under the competence of Seimas to decide regarding the formation of Seimas working group, so Seimas ought to decide regarding the formation of working group for the investigation of legitimacy of the circumstances indicated by the applicant.

Minister of Justice (signature) Petras Baguška

Petras Grigalis, 266 29 78, e-mail p.grigalis@tic.lt

REQUEST: To Chairman of Anticorruption Commission of Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania

Document Nr.4
Stamp: “REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
SEIMAS OFFICE * RECEPTION OFFICE
RECEIVED
No. g-2007-2649 of 09 03 2007
To Chairman of Anticorruption Commission

of Seimas of the Republic of Lithuania

Rimantas Jonas Dagys

Zenonas Jurgelevičius

Res. at Jaunimo 28 Ringaudai

Kaunas District LT 53336

8 March 2007

REQUEST

Dear Chairman of the Anticorruption Commission of Seimas of the Lithuanian Republic,

I address you as the head of a state institution having the right and legal power to stop the self-will performed by officials. For already sixteen years land administrators uncontrolled by anybody and non-liable against law for the self-will conducted by them are raging in Lithuanian state. They constantly and unpunished carry out actions contradicting laws of the Republic of Lithuania and RL Constitution. The victims of self-willing land administrators cannot defend their natural rights either in Republic of Lithuania institutions of state power and administration or in the Republic of Lithuania courts of all instances. As the subject right of a person is real and not declarative only in such case – if that person has an opportunity to realize it – that means that Republic of Lithuania law enforcement system does not defend the rights of legitimate land owners.

In this „Request“ a specific land administrator’s example of self-will has been presented – it is only one episode from the universal self-will constantly carried out in Kaunas County, Kaunas District, Ringaudai settlement by officials for already sixteen years. That self-will manifests itself by taking away 138 ha of land area from the legitimate land owners – direct relatives and successors of volunteers of pre-war Lithuanian state independence fights. Under the guise of special law No. I-1454 of 18 06 1991 and (since) 01 07 1997 special law No. VIII-359 relating to the „restoration“ of most RL citizens ownership rights which have never been legally interrupted grounded on scienter based on the wrong knowledge and together with them carried out Law of Land Reform of RL – the officials for 16 years already at their disposition determine the fates of legitimate land owners. Such all-mightiness of the official opinion is completely incompatible with civil law basics which are universally accepted in the world and according to which all persons shall be equal before the law, the court, and other State institutions and officials.These imperative legal norms have been consolidated in RL Constitution Art. 29, part 1, Universal Human Rights Declaration Article 1, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Article 14 and RL CC Art. 1.5

We defended ourselves from the self-will of the officials violating the ownership rights of RL legitimate land owners in organized way, by uniting into public organizations. Several times we addressed all RL governmental authorities and law enforcement institutions, however, remained unheard. Well-grounded information about the continuing of land seizure in Kaunas Region Ringaudai settlement in the autumn of 2005 was published in daily „Lietuvos Aidas“ and is announced in Internet, free information portal www.straipsniai.lt under the heading „Human Rights“ (Zmogaus teises) placed five part article „Who is Who in Post-Soviet Lithuania?“ RL law enforcement institutions do not react to the announced illegitimate officials actions at all. This failure to act of RL legal system is the cause – which made us address you.

According to valid RL laws in the Republic of Lithuania continuing restoration of citizen ownership rights to the real estate has been carried out since 1991. Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė to Kaunas Region (of that time) Noreikiškės rural district Agrarian Reform Service in time handed all the necessary documents for the restoration of ownership rights (see appended documents from No. 3.3. to No. 3.13) – however nobody ever even attempted to „restore“ those rights and to return the land she had inherited (to her) in kind. Instead of the return of land in kind defined in 18 06 1991 Republic of Lithuania Supreme Council (SC) passed RL law No. I-1454 „On the Procedure and Conditions of the Restoration of the Rights of Ownership -to the Existing Real Property” and 01 07 1997 by RL Seimas passed Republic of Lithuania Law “On the Restoration of Ownership Rights of Citizens to the Existing Real Property“- Kaunas District (and later) Governor Administration of Kaunas County land administrators for already the second decade constantly carry out their self-will. This example of specific officials’ self-will consists of five officials attempts carried out with envy arousing constancy to take away from Elžbieta Jurgelevičienė inherited land and to sell it in lots for private construction. For that aim the land administrators applied ambiguous 18 06 1991 RL law No. I-1454 and 01 07 1997 RL law No VIII-359 which enabled them to replace equality for all with will of the officials. Passing of these laws is grounded by scienter wrong knowledge (see appended documents from No. 2 to. No. 2.5) and due to that they (of such wording of which they are) could not be passed at all and applied in RL legal practice. This statement of mine is confirmed by the text of the appended document No. 2.6. That is Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic Supreme Soviet Lithuanian SSR Peasant Farm Law passed on 4 July 1989 (No. XI-3066) in which part II Art. 7 item 3 it has been established that “The legitimate land inheritors have the priority right (to get a specific land) for establishing a peasant farm“. “If at the end of Soviet occupation the legitimate land owners (due to generation of generations) were legitimate inheritors of land domains – the restoration of independent Lithuanian state in no way could turn them to „claimants to the restoration of ownership rights“.

The first Kaunas District land administrators’ attempt to take away the land inherited by E.Jurgelevičienė took place in 1991 and manifested itself as allotment of that land for the expansion of Ringaudai settlement (see, appended document No. 4.2 – Kaunas District Board Decree No. 84). As such land allotment openly contradicted LR law No. I-1454 of 18 06 1991 Kaunas District Head Public Prosecutor S. Brinevičius protested against it and presented a claim to Kaunas District Court (see appended documents No. 4.3, 4.4 and 4.1). Then Kaunas District Board passed Decree No. 527 by which it cancelled the land allotment for the expansion of Ringaudai settlement situated at Kaunas Region (see appended documents No. 4.5, 4.6 and 4.7). Since that time allotment of land for the expansion of Ringaudai settlement has no legal basis and is based only on the self-will of the officials.

The second attempt of Kaunas District officials and land administrators to take away the land inherited by E.Jurgelevičienė took place in 1993-1995. It manifested itself in the officials attempt to invoke for assistance tax inspectorate and prove in courts that E.Jurgelevičienė self-wilfully and illegitimately occupied state land (see appended documents from No. 7.1 and No. 7.20). This attempt of officials and land administrators for also resulted unsuccessfully. The land possessed by E.Jurgelevičienė and inherited by her was attributed to returnable and taxed by normal tax rate (see appended documents No. 7.21; 7.22 and 7.23). That determined and created new E.Jurgelevičienė real estate inheritance legal situation as RL Constitutional Court on 27 05 1994 in case No. 12/93 resolution explained that (beginning of the quotation):

„...On the basis of such occupational power self-will acts legitimate state property could not appear and has not appeared, as law cannot appear on illegitimate basis. So the property taken away in such a way form people ought to be considered as property that is only factually possessed by the state “ (end of the quotation).

After the restoration of independent Lithuanian state on 11 03 1990 E.Jurgelevičienė in fact possessed the domain she had inherited, grew agricultural production on that domain and by the instruction of state tax inspectorate paid for it to the state land tax of established amount until 1998. That proves – that the factual possessor of her family land domain until 1998 was E.Jurgelevičienė and not the state. As she herself possessed inherited land domain which had never become the state property the later cancellation of land domain factually possessed by E.Jurgelevičienė is not permitted during E.Jurgelevičienė factual possession of her land valid in Lithuanian state (and valid till present) RL Constitution Art. 23 and Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Protocol 1 Art.1 legal norms which came into force in RL at that time. The Republic of Lithuania ratified Protocol 1 of the Convention on 7 December 1995 by law No. I-1117. RL deposited ratification letters in the European Council on 27 May 1996. So performing further seizure of E.Jurgelevičienė’s land domain, Kaunas County officials are roughly violating the mentioned imperative legal norms.

The third attempt of Kaunas County officials and land administrators to take away the land inherited by E.Jurgelevičienė took place on 13 05 2003 when Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Valentinas Kalinauskas by Order No. V-213 refused to restore to E.Jurgelevičienė the ownership rights to the land domain inherited by her (see appended documents from 9.1 to 9.3.2.). As this attempt to take away the land domain inherited by E. Jurgelevičienė was based on presentation in appended document No. 9.2.2. (Governor Administration of Kaunas County Administration Law Department Senior Specialist Jurgita Blažauskaitė presentation of 09 05 2003 re Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė request) by publicized allotting of land for the expansion of Ringaudai settlement – it was failed to be implemented. In the mentioned presentation of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Law Department Senior Specialist Jurgita Blažauskaitė of 09 05 2003 : Regarding Elžbieta Jurgelevičienė request the dates of landlot selling were indicated. These dates indisputably prove complete flouting of Kaunas County officials and land administrators (and other Lithuanian state institution officials assisting them) with legal norms valid in RL – among them resolution of the Constitutional Court possessing the power of law of 27 05 1994 in case No. 12/93 in which the expansion of rural settlements is acknowledged as contradicting RL Constitution Art. 23. Information about that is in appended documents from No. 6.1. to 8.3.

In this place it is necessary to emphasize that when we failed to defend justice in the civil procedure – a representative authorized by E.Jurgelevičienė addressed the pre-court investigation institutions (see appended documents No. 9.4; 9.4.1. and 9.4.2). However, the request of a representative authorized by E.Jurgelevičienė of 13 08 2003 to Republic of Lithuania Kaunas District Head Police Commissar S.Šestakovas to investigate the legal violations performed by Kaunas County and employees of Kaunas District land administration services and to stop the illegitimate actions carried out by them (reg. No. 5-J-38) was sent by Kaunas Region Police Commissariat Economic Crime Investigation Section Commissariat Inspector Linas Šarkys on 22 08 2003 to Governor Administration of Kaunas County (i.e. to institution whose actions were complained about).

On 25 02 2000 RL Prime Minister A.Kubilius sent requests to Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County K.Starkevičius and Kaunas District Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius regarding the defence of interests of J. Stašaitis amd E.Jurgelevičienė (see appended document No. 8.4). Neither Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County K.Starkevičius nor Kaunas District Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius reacted to this request. That proves that officials of RL pre-court investigation institutions do not perform their direct duties.

The fourth attempt of Kaunas County officials and land administrators to take away the land inherited by E.Jurgelevičienė took place on 09 09 2005 when Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Zigmantas Gediminas Kazakevičius by Order No. 02-05-8830 did not restore to E.Jurgelevičienė the ownership rights to the land domain inherited by E.Jurgelevičienė (see appended document No. 9.5.1.). By the other documents appended to the Order of Governor Administration of Kaunas County (see appended documents No. 9.5. and 9.5.2.) it is seen that this attempt of seizure of the land inherited by E.Jurgelevičienė was based on 15 07 2005 Governor Administration of Kaunas County Land Survey Department Kaunas District Municipality Land Administration Division Senior Specialist Gražina Jonikaitė’s Certificate No. ĮP-493 on the fact that E.Jurgelevičienė did not present all the documents necessary for the return of land to land administration aervices in time. The evidence that the mentioned specialist in Certificate No. ĮP-493 enters and confirms by her signature scienter false data – are in the appended documents from No. 3.3. to No. 3.13. So this attempt of seizure of land did not create the image of (that seizure) legitimacy.

The fifth attempt of seizure of E.Jurgelevičienė land is taking place at present and Kaunas District, Kaunas Circuit and Lithuanian Supreme Court judges, who must without compromise defend justice, participate in it as well. This statement could be considered ungrounded – if during the hearing of this case in those courts multiple violations of application of material and procedural law norms have not been performed and if by such court Decisions land acknowledged as not belonging to E.Jurgelevičienė would not have been measured into lots for private construction for anti-constitutional Ringaudai settlement expansion. Such measurement in the land inherited by E.Jurgelevičienė was performed on 06 03 2007. The most important circumstance proving violation of E.Jurgelevičienė rights and inability to defend those rights in the Courts of the Republic of Lithuania is the fact that E.Jurgelevičienė ownership right to inherited land domain legal cancellation Civ. case No. 0748-358/2006 in Kaunas District Court was started following scienter false information basis RL law No. VIII-359 passed by RL Seimas on 01 07 1997 (so legally null and void). This law was passed in RL already when the legal norms of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms Protocol 1 Art. 1 were valid and even if it was not passed by scienter false information basis (and due to that was not legitimately null and void) in accordance with the hierarchy of application of laws according to their legal power it still could not deny the legal norms of Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms superior legal power – which in this specific case defend E.Jurgelevičienė ownership rights. That means that Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006 could not be started in Kaunas District Court at all.

By the witness evidence video recordings in DVD disc, which is appended and marked as No. 11, it is obvious that complainant G.Bublienė in her 17 02 2006 claim to Kaunas District Court presented false data about her right to inherit V. Eisrotas (Aišrotas) land and the number of inheritors who had inherited that land.

As all the mentioned courts did not investigate the arguments presented by E.Jurgelevičienė, did not permit her to choose a representative who would defend her interests and did not permit to appoint her a curator (who would have revealed false statements of the complainant) who can deny that the decisions passed by these courts were not tendentious and were aimed not at defence of justice?

In Kaunas District and Kaunas Circuit Court during the hearing the Civ. case No. 2-0748-358/2006, which was initiated without legal grounds, a number of rough violations of material and procedural laws were carried out (see appended documents from 10.1 to 10.2.3).

In evaluating legitimacy of the Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006 it is especially important to note the fact that till initiation of this Civ. Case of 28 03 2006 in Kaunas District Court nobody ever disputed E.Jurgelevičienė inheritance right to land (see appended documents No. 5.1, 5.2.1. and 5.2..2.).

I additionally draw your attention to the following facts:

1. In accordance with RL Constitution Art. 1, 2 3, 4, 5 and 6 by imperative legal norms Lithuanian state is created by the Nation and due to that sovereignty belongs to the Nation. When in the opinion of electorate participation in the state governing through democratically elected representatives does not satisfy its expectations –electorate, in accordance with RL Constitution Art. 4, can implement his sovereign powers individually and directly (i.e. to realize his right consolidated in RL Constitution Art. 25 to have its own opinion and express it freely. That in CC Art. 1.5 is defined as reasonable behaviour). The legal way of every member of the Nation to execute his the supreme sovereign power (RL Constitution Art. 4) is the right of every citizen to apply to court and in this way to realize his legitimate expectations. LSC has emphasized more than once that „person‘s subjective right is real and not declarative only in the case if the person is able to execute it“. Valid CPC Art. 56 does not acknowledge these rights and the RL courts applying it do not create possibilities for execution of the mentioned rights in practice (i.e. deny RL Constitution Art. 2 legal provision that in the Republic of Lithuania sovereignty belongs to the Nation).

2. Both restoration of citizen ownership rights and land reform (in which even the left land minimum necessary for the feeding of the land owner’s family has not been established) continues unreasonably long and has been unreasonably encumbered for 16 years due to the fault of officials (when they in the terms established in the laws do not return the citizen land domains) for a person having no source of living by the person being at suit beyond bearable expenses.

I request:

1. To immediately stop illegitimate land seizure actions in Kaunas District Ringaudai village.

2. To inspect the evidence presented by me in this „Request“ and by E.Jurgelevičienė in Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006 „counter-claim“, „Appeal“ and „Appeal in Cassation“ presented evidence and if they are confirmed – to call to criminal account the persons consciously violating law (abusing law) – and in this way to defend the violated rights of legitimate land owners.

3. To establish the amount of damage done to the legitimate land owners and to initiate its compensation.

APPENDICES: To the present request document copies and witness evidence video recordings are appended.

1, Documents proving that within the restoration of ownership rights of the citizens which has continued for sixteen years (in the course of that restoration) Republic of Lithuania Seimas changed the laws that regulate order of representation of citizens in courts. That proves that in Republic of Lithuania citizen equality before the law is violated and in this way the defence of RL citizen legitimate interests in courts is artificially encumbered:

1.1. Power of attorney reg. No. 2-6316 was issued to Zenonas Jurgelevičius by Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė on 05 05 2003. In this power of attorney there is Notary Ramutė Siliūnienė’s interpolation that „According to CPC Art. 56 the court cannot grant a right to the authorized person to represent in case“. That means that in this case the law which must be equally applied to all citizens is changed to man‘s (judge‘s) will – which can be various.

1.2. Power of attorney reg. No. 11-2154 was issued to Zenonas Jurgelevičius by Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė on 31 03 1995.

1.3. Power of attorney reg. No. 1-8664 was issued to Zenonas Jurgelevičius by Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė on 30 09 1997.

2. Documents proving legally relevant fact that until the occupation authorities legally cancelled ownership rights of the legitimate land owners of the Republic of Lithuania who until 15 06 1940 (beginning of Soviet occupation) according to ownership right possessed land domains up to 30 ha area and the land possessed by those owners (in 1940, to them) was left for their eternal use (that means that in post-Soviet special laws regulating the RL citizen ownership right restoration of 15 06 1991 and 01 07 1997 scienter false information about the universal land nationalization allegedly performed by Lithuanian occupation government in 1940 has been inscribed):

2.1. People Seimas Declaration about taking of land to the ownership of the state and its consolidation for eternal use of the peasants of 22 07 1940 (as personal property and state obligation to defend that personal property – see this Declaration item 7).

2.2. Ministers (in this way in the text) Soviet decision on formation of state land fund of 05 08 1940. The very fact of existence of this documents indisputably proves that after 22 07 1940 all land did not become the property of state – as if on that day universal land nationalization would have taken place in Lithuania – as a consequence of fulfilment of that nationalization all (possessed by all citizens) land would have become state property and there would have not been any sense to establish state land fund – to which taking every land domain – that taking was executed in special documents (see this Resolution Part I Formation of State Land Fund – item 3).

2.3. Document additionally explaining Minister Soviet Resolution about the formation of the state land fund of 05 08 1940 is State Agricultural Commission Explanation. In the text of this document it is openly spoken about land leaving to the owners who had possessed it till 15 06 1940.

2.4. Rules about Lithuanian Socialist Republic State Agricultural Commission work have been announced by Prime Minister who was acting as the President of the Republic of Lithuania. In these rules item 10 rural district commission duties (power limits) were named and in items 16 and 17 the appeal procedure of those rural district improper carrying out of duties of the commission was established. That additionally proves that in 1940 there was no universal and contemporaneous land nationalization in Lithuania. Then Soviet land reform was taking place and in the valid legal acts procedure for improper that reform decisions regarding the specific land domain appeal was established.

2.5. State Agricultural Commission instruction about the procedure to fulfil land management reorganization.

2.6. Lithuanian SSR Peasant Farm Law (No. XI-3066) passed by Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic Supreme Soviet on 4 July 1989.

3. Governor Administration of Kaunas County Land Survey Department Kaunas District Municipality Land Administration Division letters on assumed failure by Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė to present document for return of land in time and the written evidence proving legal illegitimacy of those letters.

3.1. Offer for considering additional documents proving the fact regarding land possession through ownership rights of Kaunas District Commission of 19 09 2001.

3.2. Notice of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Land Survey Department Kaunas District Municipality Land Administration Division to E.Jurgelevičienė No. 295 of 20 05 2002

3.3. Vincas Eisrotas Land Inheritors Request to Kaunas District Noreikiškės Rural District Agrarian Reform Service regarding return of land of 14 10 1991.

3.4. Vincas Eisrotas Land Inheritors Agreement.

3.5. Kaunas District Noreikiškės Rural District Agrarian Reform Service Chairman V.Bilskis Certificate on all documents necessary for land return presentation to this service issued to E.Jurgelevičienė

3.6. Tax cheque paid for document execution to Kaunas District Noreikiškės Rural District Agrarian Reform Service of E.Jurgelevičienė of 14 10 1991.

3.7. Archives Certificate No. A-308 Re: V.Eisrotas land issued to Z.Jurgelevičius by Kaunas State Archives on 30 01 1993

3.8. Certificate No. 17-E of Lithuanian State Archives of 23 04 1993

3.9. Land Transference Deed to Aišrotas Vincas Act No. 836 of (the day is illegible) May 1926 of Republic of Lithuania Ministry of Agriculture

3.10.Vincas Eisrotas, Mikas son, Death Certificate

3.11. Extract of marriage certificate of Vincas Eisrotas and Elzbieta Rugieniūtė of 16 01 1923.

3.12 Elzbieta Eisrotaite Birth Certificate Extract No. 124

3.13. Republic of Lithuania Kaunas District Board Civil Registry Department Certificate No. 1966 confirming Juozas Jurgelevičius and Elzbieta Eisrotaite marriage in 1949 and dissolution of that marriage on 15 11 1971 of 24 10 1991.

4. Documents on officials performing the post-Soviet land reform and ownership rights restoration in Kaunas District first attempt to seize from Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė the land domain inherited by her – basing that seizure on land assignment for expansion of Ringaudai settlement and the legal illegitimacy of that land assignment and the documents proving that land assignment for Ringaudai settlement expansion cancellation:

4.1. Declaration of Kaunas District Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius to Kaunas District Court of 04 03 1993 (according to it Civil case No. 2-409/93 was initiated).

4.2. Kaunas District Board Decree No. 84.

4.3. Protest No. 07-03/92 of Kaunas District Head Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius to Kaunas District Noreikiškės Rural District Council of 17 07 1992.

44.4. Protest No. 07-03/92 of Kaunas District Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius to Kaunas District Board of 27 07 1992.

4.5. Decree No. 527 of Kaunas District Board of 29 10 1992 according to which land assignment for Ringaudai settlement located in Kaunas District expansion was cancelled.

4.6. Kaunas District Board Letter No. 130 of 25 02 1992 addressed to Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius about the cancellation of illegitimate assignment of land in Kaunas District.

4.7. Republic of Lithuania Attorney General A. Paulauskas letter No. 7/2-51-93 of 13 05 1993 to RL Seimas member K.Paukštys in which the Seimas member is informed that „Kaunas District Board changed the illegitimate decrees after court hearing“.

5. Documents proving Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė’s right to inherit 4.5 ha land in Kaunas District Ringaudai village.

5.1. RL Construction and Urbanization Minister A.Nasvytis letter No. 1-112-J-180 of 04 05 1992 to RL Government.

5.2.1. Decision of Civ. Case No. 2-910/95 heard by Kaunas District Court Judge A.Urbšys on 06 09 1995 Re legally relevant fact establishment .

5.2.2. Eisrotas Vincas land lot at Ringaudai vill., separation (partition of property) plan worked out by Alšėnai-Noreikiškės Agrarian Reform Service Specialist G. Jonikaitė and presented for Kaunas District Court to attach to Civ. Case No. 2-910/95.

6. Documents that prove that part of state officials executing in Kaunas District Post-Soviet Land Reform and citizen ownership right restoration consciously do not fulfill Republic of Lithuania Constitutional Court Resolution in case No. 12/93 of 27 05 1994 which acknowledges rural settlement expansion as contradicting to RL Constitution Art. 23:

6.1. 1994, land administration plan – by which (comparing it with the present plans) one can draw a conclusion about Republic of Lithuania Constitutional Court Resolution in case No. 12/93 of 27 05 1994 on violating illegitimate construction scope in Ringaudai settlement.

6.2. Republic of Lithuania State Control Department Decision No. 67 of 11 10 1994: Re: Land Reform in Kaunas District Noreikiškės Rural District Execution Inspection Results.

6.3. Lithuanian Minister of Agriculture V. Einoris letter No. 1110-2-780 of 10 11 1994 to State Control Department.

6.4. State Control Department letter No. 01-15-1813 of 24 11 1994 in which Minister of Agriculture V.Einoris is explained the procedure of execution of resolutions of RL Constitutional Court

6.5. Letter of Consultation Council for Fight with Economic Crimes at Republic of Lithuania President No. 12/1-28 of 15 02 1995 which deals with suspected state institution officials failure to perform direct duties.

6.6. Minister of Agriculture V. Einoris letter No. 1600-1-122 of 07 03 1995 to Consultation Council for Fight with Economic Crimes at the Republic President.

6.7. Consultation Council for Fight with Economic Crime at the Republic President. Letter No. 12/1-52 of 20 03 1995.

6.8. State Control Department Letter No. 120-1-391 to Prime Minister A.Šleževičius Re assignment of land for private dwelling construction in Kaunas District Noreikiškės Rural District of 03 03 1995.

7. Documents about the second post-Soviet land reform and restoration of ownership rights in Kaunas County, Kaunas District executing officials attempt to seize from Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė the land domain inherited by her – basing that seizure by scienter fulfilled illegitimate state land occupation initiating Civ. Case in court.

7.1. Letter of Kaunas District Noreikiškės Rural District Chief to Kaunas District Tax Inspectorate which was also signed by Noreikiškės Rural District Agrarian Reform Service Chairman A. Lelys of 26 10 1993

7.2. State Tax Inspectorate Letter No. 04-18 of 30 05 1994.

7.3. State Tax Inspectorate Notice No. 1-313 of 30 05 1994.

7.4. List No. 62 of Kaunas District Noreikiškės Rural District Citizens who self-wilfully occupied land in 1994 of 16 11 1994.

7.5. Zenonas Jurgelevičius Open Letter to RL President A. Brazauskas of 02 11 1994 (was published in 18 11 1994 „Lietuvos Aidas“ daily (No. 226).

7.6. Kaunas District State Tax Inspectorate Declaration No. 01-04 re 2405.41 LTL land tax for self-wilfully occupied land exaction from E.Jurgelevičienė of 16 01 1995.

7.8. Kaunas District Court decision satisfying State Tax Inspectorate claim in Civ. Case No. 2-281/95, of 13 06 1995

7.9. Kaunas District State Tax Inspectorate demand No. 04-18 that E.Jurgelevičienė paid illegitimately increased land tax of 24 07 1995.

7.10 Kaunas District State Tax Inspectorate Declaration No. 01-04 re 784.08 LTL land tax for self-wilfully occupied land exaction from E. Jurgelevičienė of 06 11 1995.

7.11. Z.Jurgelevičius Appeal of 16 06 1995.

7.12. Kaunas District Court Decision in Civ. Case No. 2-281/95 of 20 11 1995.

7.13. Z.Jurgelevičius Appeal of 27 11 1995

7.14 Kaunas District Mayor letter No. 35-J of 05 02 1996.

7.15. Kaunas District Municipality Administration letter No. 91 of 13 02 1996.

7.16 Kaunas Circuit Court Decision in Civ. Case No. 2A-44/96 of 06 03 1996.

7.18. Jurgelevičius Appeal of 08 03 1996.

7.19 Kaunas District Court Decision of 05 09 1996.

7.20. Z.Jurgelevičius Letter to Kaunas District Mayor V.Senvaitis (reg. No. 201-J) of 25 04 1996

7.21 Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Head Deputy Z.Kubilienė letter to Noreikiškės Agrarian Reform Service Head No. 1255 of 12 11 1996

7.22 Kaunas District State Tax Inspectorate letter to E.Jurgelevičienė No. 04-18 of 20 03 1997.

7.23 Cheques of E.Jurgelevičienė Land Tax payment to state of 1994 and 1997.

8. Republic of Lithuania Seimas Controller and RL Prime Minister offers regarding the self-will of officials conducting post-Soviet land reform and restoration of ownership rights against E.Jurgelevičienė cancellation:

8.1 Seimas Ombudsman’s K.Milkeraitis notice on Z.Jurgelevičius appeal investigation postponing No. 99/04-551 of 08 07 1999

8.2 Seimas Ombudsman’s K.Milkeraitis „Certificate“ on Z.Jurgelevičius appeal No. 99/04-551 investigation of 11 11 1999.

8.3. Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Land Survey Department R.Staseliene letter No. J-582/2 in which scienter false data about „without violating“ distribution performed by officials of part (1.665 ha) division of land domain inherited by E. Jurgelevičienė for private dwelling construction of 29 12 1999

8.4 RL Prime Minister A.Kubilius requests to Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County K. Starkevičius and Kaunas District Public Prosecutor S.Brinevičius regarding the defence of J. Stašaitis and E. Jurgelevičienė interests of 25 02 2000.

9. Documents on the third and the fourth attempts of officials implementing the post-Soviet land reform and restoration of citizen ownership rights in Kaunas County to seize from E. Jurgelevičienė the land domain inherited by her. These are orders of two Kaunas County Heads regarding the non restoration of ownership rights to E. Jurgelevičienė and the documents „legally grounding“ those orders. Also appended texts of requests of representative authorized by E. Jurgelevičienė and motivated complaints (against such officials self-will):

9.1 E.Jurgelevičienė Repeated request to Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Re: return of inherited land in kind (reg. No. 2J-308) of 28 03 2003

9.2 Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Law Department Irena Narkeviciene notice No. 11-J-308-362 to E.Jurgelevičienė of 14 05 2002 Re request to which the following documents are attached:

9.2.1. Governor Administration of Kaunas County Order No. V-213 of 13 05 2003

9.2.2. Governor Administration of Kaunas County Law Department Senior Specialist Jurgita Blažauskaitė presentation of 09 05 2003 Re Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė request

9.2.3. Governor Administration of Kaunas County Sitting minutes re Elzbieta Jurgelevičienės request (31 03 2003 No. 2J-308) considering of 05 05 2003.

9.3. Appeal of representative authorized by E. Jurgelevičienė of 30 05 2003

9.3.1. Reply of Government Representative in Kaunas County No. 10-83 to appeal of representative authorized by E.Jurgelevičienė of 30 05 2003 of 03 06 2003.

9.3.2. Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County reply No. 11-J-308/2-467 of 06 06 2003 ,,to appeal of representative authorized by E.Jurgelevičienė of 03 05 2003.

9.4. Request to Republic of Lithuania Kaunas District Head Police Commissar S.Šestakovas to investigate law violations executed by employees of Kaunas County and Kaunas District Land Administration Services (reg. No. 5-J-38) of representative authorized by E.Jurgelevičienė of 13 08 2003.

9.4.1. Kaunas District Police Commissariat Economic Crime Investigation Section Commissariat Inspector Linas Šarkys letter No. 26-8-5970 about resending of request of 13 08 2003 of representative authorized by E.Jurgelevičienė to Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County (i.e. institution the actions of which were complained of) of 22 08 2003

9.4.2. Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County reply No. 11-J-308/3-782 to the request of representative authorized by E.Jurgelevičienė of 13 08 2003 to Republic of Lithuania Kaunas District Chief Police Commissar S.Šestakovas of 04 09 2003.

9.5. Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Land Survey Department Kaunas District Municipality Land Administration Division Tautvydas Tamašauskas letter No. S6-1855 to Elzbieta Jurgelevičienė Re restoration of ownership right of 20 09 1005. The following documents are appended to this letter.

9.5.1. Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Zigmantas Gediminas Kazakevičius Order No. 02-05-8830 re non-restoration of ownership rights to E.Jurgelevičienė of 09 09 2005

9.5.2. Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County Land Survey Department Kaunas District Municipality Land Administration Division Senior Specialist Gražina Jonikaitė Certificate No. ĮP-493 in which the mentioned specialist by inscription and her signature confirms scienter false data on the fact that E. Jurgelevičienė (so to say) in time did not present all the documents necessary for the return of land of 15 07 2005.

10. Documents on the fifth attempt of Republic of Lithuania state institution officials to seize from E.Jurgelevičienė the land inherited by her and by the same to protect from legal responsibility (for their illegitimate actions) the officials trading in land inherited by E.Jurgelevičienė:

10.1. Notice No. 2-0748-358/2006 of Kaunas District Court of 28 03 2006 to E.Jurgelevičienė about her participation as the third person in Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006. To this notice the following documents are enclosed:

10.1.1. Claim of Genovaitė Būblienė to Kaunas District Court of 17 02 2006: to cancel Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County order No. 02-05-8829; to renew to the time-limit for the complainant to hand the request to Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County regarding the restoration of the ownership rights to land possessed by Motiejus Eišrotas in Kaunas District Ringaudai village and establish legally relevant fact that the father of the complainant Motiejus Eišrotas in Kaunas Region Ringaudai village possessed through ownership right a land domain of 3.01 ha. Appendix (to this claim): Copies of the claim, copies of birth, marriage and death certificates, cheque on stamp duty, copies of archives certificates, copy of representation agreement.

10.1.2. Three court summons to E.Jurgelevičienė to hearing of Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006 on 16 05 2006 at 9:00., 01 06 2006 at 13:00 and on 29 08 2006 at 9:00.

10.1.3. counter-claim of E. Jurgelevičienė of 08 04 2006 to claim of complainant G.Bublienė in Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006.

10.1.4. counter-claim No. 6-319 of Head of Governor Administration of Kaunas County of 20 04 2006 to the claim in Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006.

10.1.5. Decision of Kaunas District Court of 01 06 2006 in Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006.

10.1.6. Request of E.Jurgelevičienė to Kaunas District Court regarding appointing a guardian of 24 04 2006

10.1.7. Decision of Kaunas District Court of 02 05 2006 by which E.Jurgelevičienė request regarding appointing a guardian of 24 04 2006 is rejected.

10.1.8. Decision of Kaunas District Court of 12 09 2006 in Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006. In this Decision Kaunas District Court refuses to hear in Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006 the third person E. Jurgelevičienė who had expressed independent demands presented (written) arguments and presented evidence and satisfies complainant G.Bublienė claim based on scienter false statements.

10.2. Appeal of E.Jurgelevičienė of 08 10 2006 to Kaunas Circuit Court by which in appeal procedure Kaunas District Court Decision in Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006 of 12 09 2006 is taken a review against.

10.2.1. Notice of Kaunas District Court of 13 10 2006 on sending of Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006 to Kaunas Circuit Court

10.2.2. Notice of Kaunas Circuit Court of 06 11 2006 to E.Jurgelevičienė about the place and time of hearing of Civ. Case No. 2A-1335-343/2006.

10.2.3. Decision of Kaunas Circuit Court of 07 12 2006 in Civ. Case No. 2A-1335-34/2006 by which Kaunas District Court Decision in Civ. Case No. 2-0748-358/2006 of 12 09 2006 is upheld.

11. DVD disc with video recordings of evidence of witnesses Rimantas Dovydaitis, Kazimieras Dovydaitis, Bronė Šilinskienė and Onutė Zaicevičienė (who Kaunas District and Kaunas Circuit Courts did not create a possibility for E.Jurgelevičienė‘s representative to invite into the case hearing). The evidence of these witnesses confirms that in the claim of 17 02 2006 complainant Genovaitė Bublienė presented to Kaunas District Court legitimately ungrounded demands and scienter false evidence.

12. Cassation appeal of E.Jurgelevičienė of 30 01 2007 No. 3P-728/2007 to LSC (Lithuanian Supreme Court) reg. No.337. Reg. date 27 02 2007.

13.1. LSC Decision of 06 03 2007 and Cassation Appeal No. 3P-728/2007 resending to E.Jurgelevičienė covering letter.

13.2. LSC Decision No. 3P-728/2007 of 05 03 2007

Faithfully yours, Zenonas Jurgelevičius (signature)

Member of Lithuanian Human Right Centre