by Scott

One of the lesser known methods of color revolutionaries and snatchers of sovereign countries is to file multiple baseless frivolous lawsuits simultaneously to clog judicial systems and to obstruct and impede the work of courts and law enforcement.

One of the recent most successful attacks took place in December 2014 in Ukraine, when a Soros funded EuroMaidanSOS coordinated with over 400 lawyers to flood the Ukrainian criminal and civil court systems with approximately 5000 complaints, crippling it at a time when the foreign organized violent coup against the democratically elected government of Ukraine was underway. The lawsuits filed in local and superior courts complained about everything from human rights violation, to a poor quality of food in state prisons, to the mismanagement of business contracts by the government.

The result we know: Ukrainian courts and law enforcement agencies were paralyzed, the democratically elected government was overthrown in a bloody coup coordinated by the Pentagon and Brussels, and the fascist junta took a rule over the country and declared the war on half of the population of Ukraine. Simultaneously, it gave the EU and US excuse to declare war on Russia, which was the entire reason why the coup in Ukraine took place initially.

Sixteen months later, we see a flood of lawsuits, 14199 filed against Russia in a supra-government organization the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). You can view those suits here:

The sheer volume of the lawsuits, however, is dwarfed by the amount of the court awards against Russia that projected to exceed $100 trillion by the end of 2015. In comparison, the US economy’s crippling debt that the US will never be able to pay is $18 trillion. There are no caps on ECHR’s awards. The judgments against Russia will soon exceed its GDP. Thus, the European courts turn awards into forms of punitive sanction against Russia’s people.

We have courts that are legal arms of the Council of Europe which is a political organ of the European Union. In 2014 the EU declared war on Russia and banned Russia from being a member of the Council of Europe. The EU and NATO place the armies of the countries of Europe, America, Canada, and Australia on Russia’s borders. After positioning the armies in Narva (158klm from Saint Petersburg) and fleets next to Russia’s territorial waters, the European courts started accepting and rubber stamping tens of thousands lawsuits against Russian taxpayers and proceeded seizing Russian taxpayers assets located in Europe and North America.

The European courts claim two legal grounds for this judicial assault: the Energy Charter Treaty 1994 (ECT), and Russia’s membership in the Council of Europe. Both of these grounds are false.

In regard to the Energy Charter Treaty 1994 (ECT), the EU Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) has ordered Russia to pay $50.08bn to the majority shareholders in Yukos Oil Company. The final award decision was issued on July 18, 2014 after the declaration of war on Russia by the EU and US. See more at:

The tribunal held unanimously that Russia breached its international obligations under the Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) –

There are many major problems with the legality of this monetary award. To name just one, Russia is not a part of ECT. The Energy Charter Treaty has been debated in Russia’s parliament from 1996 and rejected in 2006, when Russia’s Parliament refused to ratify the Energy Charter Treaty and deemed it unconstitutional.

A brief history of the ECT in Russian parliament is here. Russian politicians at the time called the treaty “stillborn,” to be “against Russia’s economic interests” and “failed to reflect the real conditions of the market.”

Since the Energy Charter Treaty has never been ratified by the Parliament, Russia is not and has never been a party to this trade treaty. It means that Yukon, and its former owners have also never been parties to this trade treaty.

How did the EU Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) decide to make Russian taxpayers pay over $50bln in alleged violation of a controversial trade treaty that Russian parliament never ratified and even explicitly rejected because the treaty violated the Constitution of Russia?

There are other issues with the Yukos decision. Like the fact that Russia’s government had paid $500mln to former shareholders to settle all the disputes when the company collapsed, and the fact that Yukos was declared bankrupt under the European court.

How can such an old and established EU institution act with such blunt disregard to the law and common sense?

Because every EU institution has been mobilized for the war against Russia. All of their decision-making must be viewed as acts of war.

After taking power in January 2014, the fascist Kiev junta immediately proceeded with the Civil War against the Russian speaking population of Ukraine and with filing lawsuits against Russia.

The first lawsuit was filed on March 13, 2014. You can read a press release here Ukraine v. Russian Federation 20958/14 13.03.2014

and Interim measure granted in inter-State case brought by Ukraine against Russia here{“itemid”:[“003-4699472-5703982”]}

Keep in mind, this is the European court that is issuing the decision against Russian government, at the time a member of the European Council, in favor of the three months old unelected military Junta, which had no legitimate representation in any of the EU and UN structures.

On August 9, 2014 Ukraine filed another lawsuit in the ECHR on the total amount of damages more than 1 trillion UAH.

In January 29, 2015 – Ukraine’s Naftogaz filed a lawsuit with the Stockholm Arbitration Court against Russia’s gas giant Gazprom, demanding over USD 6 billion repayment from the Russian company over a transit gas contract:

In April 2015, Ukraine filed two lawsuits with the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian Federation claiming that “Russia annexed Crimea” and “violated of international commitments by the Russian Federation as they pertain to Ukraine.” Ukraine Files USD 85 Billion Lawsuit Against Russia:

Ukraine is preparing more lawsuits against Russia to file with the European Court of Human Rights and the International Court of Justice.

Pavlenko, advisor to Ukrainian president Poroshenko said that, “Russia has to pay us for all this carnage and damage”. According to Pavlenko, the conflict is costing Ukraine $5 to $10 million a day.” He failed to mention that this conflict is entirely self-inflicted.

Pavlenko said, “we are putting together a detailed list of properties and businesses damaged and lives lost due to the invasion by Russia. Ukraine will seek compensation from Russia for the damage. Latest estimates show over 18,000 people have been seriously wounded, 7000 are confirmed dead and 2 million are completely displaced refugees”. “Ukraine is also contemplating whether to file an official complaint against Vladimir Putin as a war criminal.”

If Russia ever invaded Ukraine, we would have a democratic government in Kiev, and wouldn’t have a torrent of baseless frivolous lawsuits.

Since there is no proof and no legal basis for the European Union supra-national courts to award anything to Ukraine, the claimant states that, “The minister noted that as a member of the Council of Europe, the Russian Federation is obliged to pay this compensation.”

Ukrainians somehow estimated that the Ukrainian crises has already cost Russia close to $200 billion and the damage may well exceed $400 billion this year alone. That can be Russia’s platform to countersue Ukraine and the EU.

According to Minister Petrenko, Ukraine has so far applied to the European Commission of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Committee, and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture. So, we are expecting the torrent of lawsuits coming down the European legal pipes to go on, and not just from Ukraine or former Yukos owners.

Russia is the second country after the US with immigration inflow. Russia also accepts about 5 million migrant workers per year. In 2014-2015 Russia has become a recipient of nearly 1 million refugees from Ukraine.

On October 1, 2007 the Human Rights Watch released a report on Georgian immigrants in Russia. According to the report, about 1 million immigrants from Georgia legally or illegally reside in Russia, and “the vast majority of migrants working in Russia do so without work permits”.

According to Leonid Bershidsky’s article for Bloomber View, Why Russia Still Attracts Immigrants June 15, 2015. Last year, despite the collapse of oil prices and the Ukraine crisis, Russia was the biggest originator of migrant workers’ remittances in Europe with $20.7 billion in remittances.

In this flood of people coming to Russia from the former Soviet Republics, and now the independent states, there are about 1 million migrants from Georgia, who are allowed freely to come and work in Russia. The only requirements, they have to have identification papers.

On July 3, 2015, in an expression of obvious gratitude, Georgia filed multiple lawsuits with the European Court of Human Rights against the Russian taxpayers seeking over $70 million for “deportation of illegal migrants” back to Georgia in 2006.

These are in addition to the lawsuits that Georgia filed on July 3, 2014 with ECHR.

The European Court of Human Rights decided that deporting illegal immigrants and unauthorized workers back to their home countries should cost $70,000 per person.

Russia must use this decision and demand from the European counties to pay $70,000 to every illegal immigrant they deport back to their home countries.

Let’s look at the Georgian policy on illegal immigrants. It’s found in the Library of Congress of all places:

“the Ministry of Internal Affairs, will be responsible for monitoring migrants, reviewing their documents, and deciding on the legality of their stay in Georgia. Upon finding an illegal migrant, the police will extradite him or her. According to the legislation, each extradited person is to be fined, placed in a newly created temporary residence center, and made to leave the country within a month. The extradited person would be banned from returning to Georgia for the ensuing two- to five-year period. The extradition decision can be disputed in a court. (Id.) The migration control authority of the police is also prescribed by the new Law on the Police, which entered into force on January 1, 2014. GEORGIA ONLINE (Jan. 3, 2014) ”

Here the files of the European Court for Human Rights decision.{“itemid”:[“001-145546”]}

Every human rights organization in Europe that protest deportation of the illegal immigrants should know about this decision. Tell the illegal immigrants all over Europe to demand their $70,000 from European countries.

Russia’s authorities should completely ban the workers’ migration from Georgia, until the time the Georgian authorities to withdraw their complaint from ECHR.

Georgia found a new way to make money, sending millions of illegal migrants to Russia and demanding “moral” compensation for them being deported. Simultaneously, Georgia admits that they have hundreds of military officers fighting on the side of the Kiev Junta against the Russian population of Ukraine.

The actions of the ECHR go against the founding principles of the Council of Europe as stated in the STATUTE OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE London, 5.V.1949.

a. The decisions of the ECHR go against the Chapter I – Aim of the Council of Europe, Article 1 as stated “a. The aim of the Council of Europe is to achieve a greater unity between its members for the purpose of safeguarding and realizing the ideals and principles which are their common heritage and facilitating their economic and social progress.”

Instead, the ECHR abusing its power and putting severe rift between people with common heritage.

b. The decisions of the ECHR go against the Chapter I Aim of the Council of Europe. Article 1 as stated “d. Matters relating to national defense do not fall within the scope of the Council of Europe.”

c. The decisions of the ECHR go against the Chapter II, Membership, Article 3, as stated “Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law…” Kiev military junta came to power as a result of the violent overthrowing of the democratically elected president in violation of the Constitution of Ukraine.

Historically, several states were suspended from the Assembly:

— Greece, following the installation of the Colonels’ military dictatorship in 1967;

— Turkey, following the military coup of 1980;

Ukraine was not suspended following the military coup of 2014 and the installation of the Junta. Not suspending Ukraine after a violent government overthrow has been a direct violation of the European Council founding principles and historical precedents. Instead, it was Russia that was suspended in April 2014.

d. By unleashing “war on terror” directed against the Russian speaking population, Ukraine being a member of the European Council violated the Article 3 as stated “Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realization of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I.” Not all of the persons of the Russian speaking population of Ukraine enjoy the human rights and fundamental freedoms within the jurisdiction of the Kiev Junta.

On November 16, 2014 Ukraine scraped Human Rights Treaty for Eastern Ukraine region:

On March 5, 2014 The Russian parliament filed an official request with the Council of Europe’s constitutional experts, the Venice Commission, to assess the legality of the Ukrainian coup.

Russia’s request was ignored. Instead, on April 10, 2014 Resolution 1990 (2014) from the Council of Europe suspended Russian membership.

And on April 15, 2014 the Venice Commission’s delegation composed of Ms. Kiener (Switzerland), Ms. Suchocka (Poland), Mr. Papuashvili (Georgia) and Mr. Scholsem (Belgium), accompanied by an expert of the Directorate General on Democracy of the Council of Europe, Mr. Marcou (France), and the Secretary of the Venice Commission, Mr. Markert, had a meeting with the Special Commission of the Verkhovna Rada for the preparation of amendments to the Constitution of Ukraine.

Other technical problems with the ECHR decisions are as follow:

a. Individuals and groups alleging violations of human rights provisions are required to first exhaust domestic remedies before a case can be considered admissible by a European tribunal.

b. “the Court is in principle not empowered to suggest which specific individual or collective measures states should take to implement the judgments15 (with the exception of the just satisfaction), nor to annul, repeal or modify statutory provisions or individual decisions taken by administrative, judicial or other authorities.”

Kiev authorities demand the full restoration of the Ukrainian economy back to the way it was at the time Junta came to power. “Articles 46-1 and 1 of the Convention, and originates from public international law implies for the state an obligation to remedy the structural problems identified by the Court, in order to comply with these obligations in good faith”.

With respect to the obligation to remedy structural problems with the Ukraine economy, there is no doubt that Russia would have to remove the Kiev Junta and to restore the legitimate government of Ukraine back. Many members of the legitimate Ukrainian government were killed by the Junta. The government in exile is located in Russia.

c. Another crucial point of ECHR procedures is that “as expressed in the case Marckx v Belgium, States are not required to remedy the situation existing prior to the judgment.”

In contrast, the European Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) serves a very different function. “The function of the Court of Justice, however, is not to arbitrate complaints brought by individuals against member States, but to ensure that the interpretation and application of European Union Law is observed by EU members.”

Need I remind you, that Russia is not an EU member?

“Thus, the Court of Justice has jurisdiction over cases brought by a member State against another member State for treaty infringement, by a European Community institution against a State and by individual citizens or organizations against European Community institutions. The Court of Justice does not have jurisdiction over the appeals of national court decisions” Enforcement Mechanisms in the European Human Rights System

On Friday July 3, 2015 at the meeting of the country’s Security Council, president Putin said that Russia “cannot expect a change in the hostile policies of some of our geopolitical opponents in the immediate future.” He didn’t elaborate what countries he was referring to.

The reasons for pressuring Russia are clear: the country is conducting an independent policy and doesn’t trade its sovereignty. This is not to everyone’s liking, but it can’t be any other way,” he said.

This was the first time ever, the Russia’s president used words “geopolitical opponents” instead of his usual “our partners.” The fact is that the EU’s declaration of the war against Russia absolves and releases Russian taxpayers from any obligations, real or imaginary.

The war between Europe and Russia is not over yet. Why is it Europe self-declared itself a winner in a war that Europe has started? On what pretext is Europe imposing on Russian taxpayers insurmountable financial claims?

The US and EU have NATO armies on Russia’s borders pointing guns, tanks, nuclear missiles at Russia’s cities and simultaneously demanding trillions of dollars in ransom. The US and EU are conducting state-on-state financial terrorism, since these actions inspire to create fear in people.

The exposure of Russian taxpayers to these frivolous lawsuits is enormous. If Russia pays just one dollar to any of these money extortionists, Russian taxpayers will be on the hook of paying trillions of dollars to anyone in the world filing lawsuits against Russia in European courts.

Of course two can play this legal game. Russia should sue the EU, US and Ukraine for the unconstitutional bloody coup d’état, for the economic losses caused by the severance of trade ties done by Ukraine, for the economic losses due to sanctions, for NATO build up on Russia’s borders, for causing a dramatic increase in Russia’s military spending, for the refusal of Kiev junta to implement Minsk II peace agreement, for the millions of refugees that Russia is currently hosting, and for the collapse of Russian national currency that caused a 22% in death rate increase at the beginning of 2015. I believe that the death rate increase in Russia was due to people being upset about losing their savings. By Ukraine’s own observers, financial losses of Russia due to the Western backed coup in Ukrainian will rise over $400 billion at the end of this year.

This money should be recovered from the US and EU and all the other backers of the Ukrainian coup.

Russia should also sue Western media outlets for the vicious anti-Russian campaigns that started with the Olympics in Sochi, that are deeply offensive to every Russian person and cause loss of enjoyment. Russia should sue every Western official, and every American senator who opened their fat mouth and called to “kill more Russians,” like the US Army General Robert H. Scales

Russia should sue countries that have introduced sanctions on Russia over the Ukraine crisis: EU, US, Australia, Canada, Albania, Iceland, Montenegro, Norway, Ukraine, Switzerland, Japan.

However, there are no independent legal platforms anywhere in the world that Russia could use, considering that Russia is banned from the representing itself in the Western courts.

“How does Russia respond?” asks the old good Russian newspaper Pravda.
” With dignity, of course. However, it is only Russia that can hear its own explanations and arguments. All other countries either do not hear or do not want to hear them. Some others act proceeding from the concept of “revolutionary expediency” as Washington prescribed. – See more at:

Today, we see the bizarre one way street concerning Russia’s participation in European organizations. Europe states that Russia has NO RIGHTS, only responsibilities. Russia’s representatives and PMs are not allowed to participate in the European Security Council meetings and in OSCE meetings. The gag orders are placed on Russia’s taxpayers. The Russian people’s national interests are being completely dismissed and are not allowed to be expressed. Simultaneously, Russia’s international responsibilities are being artificially heightened to an unprecedented level. Russia is being demanded to forfeit all Russia’s national and domestic laws in favor of the European laws and regulations that Russia has never ratified and never agreed to, like the European Energy Treaty.

The Russian Federation ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in May 1998. The first judgment against Russia came in 2002, after Vladimir Putin has become Russia’s president.

In 2014 the ECHR has decided on 15792 complaints against Russian taxpayers. It delivered 129 judgments (concerning 218 applications), 122 of which found at least one violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. For the first 6 months of the 2015 ECHR has already accepted 14199 complaints against the Russia’s taxpayers.

Why doesn’t the ECHR consider the economic sanctions imposed on the Russian people, a vicious mass media campaign demonizing Russia, its people, and its history, and the NATO build up on the Russia’s borders as violations of the Human Rights of the people in Russia?

The Court’s budget for 2015 amounts to approximately 69 million euros. That budget is financed by contributions from the 47 member States of the Council of Europe. The European Court of Human Rights is a branch of the Council of Europe. That’s why the ECHR doesn’t see anything wrong when it comes to the European Union’s actions against people living in Russia.

To top off this madness, the 2015 contribution of Russia to the Council of Europe EUR 306 million budget is EUR 32,805,83!

Russia paid its dues to the Council of Europe, while no longer being a member of the Council of Europe. Russia was suspended from the Council of Europe in April 2014, when Russia’s delegation was suspended from the council’s parliamentary assembly. The assembly also terminated Russia’s right to participate in election observation missions and other committees.

In January 2015, the Council of Europe suspended Russia’s voting rights. The ban was imposed on Russia’s right to vote at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE).

Since Russia is being excluded as a member of the Council of Europe, it also should mean that Russia automatically stops being a signee to the European Court of Human Rights agreements and any other EU based agreements.

No one person and no one country should bear responsibilities without having any rights.

Remember Taxation without Representation?

This is worse. This is a war time tribunal over people whose tongues are cut out. This is a tribunal with a Investigator, Police Chief, Sheriff, Judge, Executioner, and the editor of a local newspaper being one and the same person. The one person, who is the sole beneficiary of the trial.

The EU Imposes the responsibilities, duties, court orders, and fines on the Russian nation while taking away its rights and venues to defend itself. The pathetic little man that is currently occupying the US presidential office compares the Russian people to a virus. The NATO nuts call to nuke Russians. The neo-Nazis in Ukraine call Russian citizens of Ukraine “Colorado beetles” and burn people alive for speaking the Russian language.

Enough is enough!

Despite what the European Court of Human Rights mistakenly believes, tax haven shell companies and offshore accounts don’t have human rights. Bloody fascists juntas, like the one in Kiev, don’t have human rights. Neo-Nazi death battalions, like those killing people in Eastern Ukraine, don’t have human rights.

Russian taxpayers have human rights, every one of them.

These legal assaults are done with the task to disrupt Russia’s legal, financial, and constitutional systems and to cause the collapse of the society, like it was done in Ukraine. Remember, how Soros funded EuroMaidanSOS coordinated with over 400 lawyers to flood the Ukrainian criminal and civil court systems with approximately 5000 complaints at the days of bloody military junta uprising in December 2014 -January 2015?

To repeal these attacks, Russia’s Parliament should declare the EU and its institutions to be “geopolitical opponents” and any agreements with them to be unconstitutional. Any trade agreements with the European countries should be done outside of the EU framework.

The EU and its institutions are on their way out. It’s only a matter of time before the EU collapses.

After 400 years of the Russian dream to become an equal part of Europe is dead. Russians paid for it in huge territorial loses, millions perished in wars facilitated by Europe, and trillions in stolen treasures. European rulers relentlessly pushed to colonize Russia, not to make it a partner. Now Russia’s government should abandon the mindset of pathological need for the European Union.

Russia’s government and its elite have to finally realize, what everyone knows by now, that the EU no longer wishes to have diplomatic relationship and to do business with Russia. We see how every cultural agreement, every trade deal is being used as a political tool to cut Russia off, to inflict a wound on Russia, to make the Russian people bleed. Russian government and its business leaders have to do everything in their power to untangle themselves from all trade deals and political agreements with the West. Otherwise, they are allowing the West to put unfair and undue harm onto Russian people. To allow this to go on is a national treason

The Essential Saker IV: Messianic Narcissism's Agony by a Thousand Cuts
The Essential Saker III: Chronicling The Tragedy, Farce And Collapse of the Empire in the Era of Mr MAGA