Russian Punk Band Is Found Guilty of Hooliganism for Anti-Putin Protest

[Misha]

BC, you make a fatal assumption that the RO Church is the one who financed the rebuilding of the edifice in question.

A nice article outlining the politics behind the financing of the Christ-the-Savior Church: http://www.ogoniok.com/4983/18/

[BC]

BC, you make a fatal assumption that the RO Church is the one who financed the rebuilding of the edifice in question.

A nice article outlining the politics behind the financing of the Christ-the-Savior Church: http://www.ogoniok.com/4983/18/

I had to check my pulse..

Financing or donations?  Of course religion has a business side. 'Little favors' here and there are a part of entwined relationships.

I don't see anything in the article/opinion that is so unusual.

[Misha]

I had to check my pulse..

Financing or donations?  Of course religion has a business side. 'Little favors' here and there are a part of entwined relationships.

I don't see anything in the article/opinion that is so unusual.

LOL! I was thinking of something else. However, the article does highlight that the RU Church was far from the driving role in building the Church. Donations came to curry favour with the then mayor Luzhkov.

[OlgaH]

Olga, they didn't perform in the park beside the church, nor in the little wood chapel, or on the Moscow river bridge. They didn't perform outside by the Aleksandr monument. No, they performed in the Sanctuary of the church, just before the Iconostasis, a step or two from the Holy Altar. To say that they were standing in a spot that the "church had no right to occupy" sounds just as nonsensical whether you say it or some newspaper supposedly quoting the assistant to the Dean. You know this, and that is why it is puzzling and disappointing to see you continue in this vein.

Mendeleyev,  even the Church official Milhail Ryazantsev himself admitted that the Church has no right on the facility where altar located and where the girls performed. That was his words and there is also official documents.

The Cathedral is open as a monument of architecture to the tourists as well from different countries. The Fund not only rent out the facilities. You can rent so called Patriarch Hall for your own birthday if you wish, but also organizes excursions, for local 350 rub per person, for foreigners 450 rub per person.

[OlgaH]

Back to the topic, my interpretation is that the RU government who owned the property told the Church "You want to rebuild it, go ahead at your cost but the property will still technically be mine..  We'll work out a little rental contract to resolve any legal issues and that allows us to use it from time to time for official ceremonies etc.

It is only your interpretation, BC. The Church was rebuilt on the City budget money as well along with free donations and obligatory donations from businesses. In 2006  the City budget allocated 140 million rub, in 2007- 170 million rub, in 2011-  217 million rub, in 2012  372  million rub to the Fund who operates the Cathedral. The Society of Protection of the Consumers Rights applied to the competent authorities to organize inspection on how the money was spent.

[BC]

It is only your interpretation, BC. The Church was rebuild on the City budget money as well along with free donations and obligatory donations from businesses. In 2006  the City budget allocated 140 million rub, in 2007- 170 million rub, in 2011-  217 million rub, in 2012  372  million rub to the Fund who operates the Cathedral. The Society of Protection of the Consumers Rights applied to the competent authorities to organize inspection on how the money was spent.

If construction was completed 19 August 2000 I would assume the allocations of the city budget you mention are for upkeep and maintenance of their property?  Did the city 'donate' to the construction effort prior to 2000?

[OlgaH]

If construction was completed 19 August 2000 I would assume the allocations of the city budget you mention are for upkeep and maintenance of their property?  Did the city 'donate' to the construction effort prior to 2000?

As I wrote in my first sentence "The Church was rebuild on the City budget money as well along with free donations and obligatory donations from businesses"

Ambitious Luzhkov was very smart, there was not spent too much from the city budget 

"Certainly the reconstruction would not be possible without the help of Mr. Luzhkov's banker friends, many of whom have made a lot of money by handling the city's accounts. Officially, says Igor Ptichnikov, executive director of the fund-raising foundation for the cathedral, some 48 banks and companies are providing 90 percent of the $250 million estimated cost... Despite calls for patriotic donations from individuals, the state and city are kicking in a lot of money from off-budget accounts, funds reliably said to be accounted for as banker contributions"
http://www.nytimes.com/1995/09/26/world/moscow-resurrecting-icon-of-its-past-glory.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[OlgaH]

Politicians in Clerical Robes

Aug 7, 2012
By Natalia Izergina

http://csis.org/blog/politicians-clerical-robes

The ongoing trial of the punk rock group Pussy Riot has riveted Russia this week and attracted attention to the relations between Church and State. Three female members of the band were charged with “hooliganism motivated by religious hatred or hostility” after they performed an anti-Putin punk-prayer on the altar of Moscow’s Christ the Savior Cathedral on February 21, 2012. Their performance was a form of political protest against Russian Patriarch Kirill’s[1]  open support for Vladimir Putin in the run-up to the presidential elections. The Pussy Riot trial became a symbol of tension between the civil society and the strengthening partnership of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROC) and Putin’s regime. The case has divided the country into two camps: supporters of the ROC and those who see it reasserting its power in Russia’s internal politics with the support of the Kremlin. By including the Church in the political processes and, in return, receiving the ROC’s blessing on numerous legislative initiatives, Putin hopes to cling to his power against the backdrop of the growing anti-Putin sentiment.

Throughout Russia’s history, the Church has maintained control over the spiritual life of raby (translated as ‘slaves’), an old Russian word used by the Russian clergy to describe followers of the church. Until the Revolution of 1917, the Church blessed the rule of Russian czars and aided them in increasing their absolute power over people. In III Duma of 1907 – 1912, the clergy participated in the State Duma elections and were a part of the government, representing primarily the interests of Czar Nicholas II.  The fight against the growing discontent of the masses and the development of the revolutionary movement brought the Church and the Czar even closer. After the revolution of 1917, the Soviet government separated the church and state, nationalized Church property, and actively repressed the clergy. The Russian constitution, adopted after the collapse of the USSR in 1991, continues the country’s secular tradition to this day. The constitution states that the “Russian Federation – is a secular state. No religion may be established as a state or obligatory religion. Religious organizations are separated from the state and equal before the law.”  Despite the constitutional guarantee of separation of church and state, Patriarch Kirill and senior members of the clergy continue to parade around with the upper echelon of the Putin regime and contribute to the legislative process.

The rapprochement of church and state, which started in mid-1990s, flourished during Vladimir Putin’s first two presidential terms. The Kremlin demonstrated a favorable predisposition towards the ROC when acting as an intermediary in the reunification talks between the ROC in Russia and the ROC abroad. In the 2007 speech  in honor of ROC’s reunification, Putin highlighted areas of cooperation, such as financial assistance in church construction and education in order to revive strong Christian traditions in Russia. The government’s active financial support of the ROC started in 2006 under the “Culture of Russia” federal program. This program allocated, from the federal budget, between 1.2 and 1.4 billion rubles, or about $47 million, to the ROC annually between 2006 and 2011.  In February 2012, Putin promised the ROC 3.5 billion rubles, or about $105 million, for the construction of churches, temples, and chapels.  Directly funding such construction projects is neither consistent with the constitutional principle of the separation of church and state nor efficient for the public use. In March 2012, residents of Chernomorskiy Boulevard  in the southern region of Moscow tried to protect a public park, protesting the construction of another church in their neighborhood. The Moscow municipality and Moscow Patriarchate’s joint project to construct 200 churches in Moscow has produced discontent among people and organizations protecting historical monuments. UNESCO, for example, objected to the Moscow municipality’s plan to reconstruct a shrine next to the UNESCO World Heritage Monument Novodevichy Monastery, which would compromise the city’s architectural integrity.  The government’s use of federal money to fund the operation of any religious organization to the detriment of funding for civil projects such as the construction of residential buildings and recreational clubs for youth has produced criticism from public and human rights organizations throughout Russia. The discussions around the construction projects raise the real issue of a mutual benefit from close ties between the ROC and the Kremlin.

Behind the widespread church construction in Russia is Kremlin’s real intention of strengthening the Church’s role as an institution that defines the morality and spirituality of the Russian population. With the Church’s support to control social mores, Putin aspires to control public opinion and defuse the revolutionary mood that is challenging his regime today. The desire to change raby’s mindset has been embraced wholeheartedly by the ROC. Patriarch Kirill in 2010 called for an increase of the ROC’s power in order to produce “a revolution in the minds of Russian people” and re-Christianize the country.  To accomplish this goal, the government and the ROC agreed to cooperate on the implementation of religious education and the development of religious radio and television programs. On May 3, 2012 Russian Ministry of Culture and the ROC signed an agreement that introduces a compulsory course on the “Fundamentals of religious cultures and secular ethics” in schools throughout Russia starting September, 2012.  The agreement is intended to fight social problems, such as drug abuse and alcoholism, prevent the development of extremism and xenophobia in the country, and develop tolerance among the youth.  Intolerance toward Putin’s regime among various age groups in Russia has, in fact, made Putin uneasy in recent years. The growth of the democratic movement, which is represented by the urban middle class demanding political changes in Russia, is the primary challenge facing Putin’s regime today. Demonstrations in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Vladivostok, and other big cities in December 2011 after rigged federal parliamentary elections and in May 2012 after the controversial presidential elections demonstrated the public’s real perception of Putin’s regime among various segments of urban population. Since the majority of Putin’s support base consists of the population living in Russia’s countryside, the spread of anti-Kremlin sentiment farther into the country really could cost Putin his throne. Hence, control of the hearts and minds of Russians in the countryside through radio, television, and the Church’s involvement in their lives is the cornerstone rationale for the Kremlin’s partnership with the ROC.

In an attempt to avoid public criticism of Kremlin’s close ties with the ROC in violation of Russian constitution, Putin, in an interfaith meeting in February 2012, called this relationship “a different regime of partnership, mutual help, and support.”  So far, the ROC, through this partnership, has enjoyed the power of a consultative body, trying to directly influence the government’s legislative process. In 2009, members of the ruling United Russia party promised Patriarch Kirill that an EU-backed program, which introduces sex education and juvenile justice in Russian schools, would undergo ROC’s review process before Duma ratification.  The ROC rejected the program; meanwhile, the civil society advisory body – the Public Chamber - a governmental body that is more equipped to assess these types of legislation was completely left out of the review process. How can a country with some of the highest HIV rates in the world allow the Church, a body that does not pretend to an understanding of health issues, dictate its health policy? Both secular and religious groups raised concern over the ROC’s growing role in politics and its influence in the political process. According to a poll conducted by the Levada Centre, 65 percent responded against religious leaders in the government; 56 percent of Russians do not want their policy makers to be biased toward religion; and 43 percent of Russians do not want the “fundamentals of religions” to be part of the school program.  The disagreement within the Russian society and among priests demonstrates an ambiguous attitude toward the partnership between the church and state with the majority supporting the constitutional separation of church and state. The Church’s backdoor deals with the regime and the interference of the ROC in the secular realm of people’s lives is likely to undermine its reputation as a religious institution, defeating the Church’s goal of re-Christianizing Russians and expanding the number of followers.

In fact, the damage to ROC’s reputation has already been done by the fact finding about Patriarch Kirill’s past and present. He made his personal fortune on duty-free import of “the highly unchristian products,” such as tobacco and alcohol in 1990s under the non-profit classification of the ROC.  The ROC’s senior leader, who is expected to set exemplarily moral behavior, has used the Church’s sacred nature as a vehicle for personal profit. Patriarch Kirill is also known to own luxurious 30,000 euro Swiss Breguet watch and a penthouse apartment in Moscow overlooking the Kremlin. In February 2011, environmentalists in Krasnodarskiy krai discovered an illegal construction of Patriarch Kirill’s summer residence on the Black Sea coast, near the village of Divnomorskoe.  The construction is located on the territory of a national park and has been sponsored by the administration of then-President Dmitry Medvedev. However, due to the secret nature of the construction project, the source of funding has not been identified. Sponsoring ROC’s affluent construction project, the Kremlin provides it with “insurance” against public scrutiny and protects their “holy” union. New facts about Patriarch Kirill seriously shook Russians’ faith of the ROC as a true religious body. Mutual support between the Church and the ruling regime and the corrupt nature of their relationship is reminiscent of the pre-revolutionary times of 1917. If the Church wants to stay out of the major political crises that could plague Putin’s regime in the future, the two institutions should abide by the Russian constitution and stop blurring the line between church and state.

On the surface it may seem that the Russian government is partnering with the ROC to improve Russia’s poor morale and spirituality, problems with drug and alcohol abuse, and growing extremism. However, the reality is that the partnership not only violates the constitutional decree of separation of state and church but has also turned the Church into an instrument of punishment of the opposition and an appendage of the regime’s ideological machine. Putin’s growing absolute power and the efforts to protect and prolong his corrupt regime have already led to mass anti-government protests reminiscent of the political shifts of 1917 and 1991 in Russia. It will only become more difficult for Putin to contain these massive anti-government protests during the years to come. Like many Russian czars, Putin is trying to maintain public support through his close cooperation with the Russian Orthodox Church. Obedience and the restraint of attitudes, which ROC preaches to its raby, is clearly intended to foster tolerance toward Putin’s regime and help him maintain a grip on his power.

[calmissile]

Very interesting summary Olga.

[mendeleyev]

Mendeleyev,  even the Church official Milhail Ryazantsev himself admitted that the Church has no right on the facility where altar located and where the girls performed. That was his words and there is also official documents.

Let us clear the air on this Olga so that you and I, who have cooperated on cultural efforts in past years, can put this behind us and maintain a good working friendship.

Some history is in order: The ROC petitioned the government to rebuild the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour as the national Cathedral of Russia.

The government granted permission in February 1990.

In 1992 a foundation composed of representatives from church, the state, and the city created a fund to accept donations and manage construction. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary families, my family included, donated funds for the reconstruction.

Since the fall of communism the Russian government has maintained that there will be no redistribution of properties to original owners except in exceptional cases in order not to open the floodgates to decades of lawsuits and confusion over the millions of citizens and organizations who were defrauded their properties by the Soviets. In the cases of churches, mosques and synagogues, educational institutions, some property, but not all, has slowly been returned.

The ROC and the city have been at odds over this property since the Communists walls came tumbling down. The church maintains that the property was granted to the church by the Tsar upon its completion and that Stalin's ordering of it to be destroyed was an illegal seizure of church property.

The state's view is that the property belongs to the state/city because it was funded and built originally by a Tsar who represented the government at the time. Thus those who believe that the state-city-church are in a cozy bedtime arrangement over the property are sadly mistaken. From the beginnings of the foundation and fundraising, tensions have been high, tempers flare often, and the city has taken the liberty of firing foundation and construction managers who don't take the city's side on disagreements.

Nevertheless in the interest of unity, in the rental agreement the church has primary responsibility for daily administration of the property in that it represents the national cathedral of Russia. The church pays rent based on a formula worked out by the foundation. That formula is based on a small group of offices and halls used regularly by the Church. The foundation, representing the city, has the right to rent out the facility as long as use does not conflict with the spiritual purposes of the church or interfere with normal church operations. In other words, Prime Minister Medvedev can use the facility for chairing a meeting on handicapped access for new Metro stations. Mayor Sergei Sobyanin can rent one of the meeting halls (not the sanctuary itself) for a birthday party for kids, etc. The Moscow Rotary Club, which was begun by Rotarian's from Sweden in 1991 for readers active in Rotary, can rent a hall for a Rotary meeting if they so wished.

Where does the rental money go? Supposedly it is accounted for by the foundation (primarily controlled by the city) in order to maintain the building and operations of the property. I say "supposedly" because as you know, Olga, this is Russia. Again, those with the mistaken belief that this is a cozy relationship crossing the boundaries of church and state would be amazed at the level of behind the scenes finger-pointing and accusations between the parties as to "where the money goes" and how it should be spent on maintaining the facility.

Olga, you can go online and find the price list of rentals of various meeting rooms and halls for approved functions. That is not a conspiracy or deep dark secret. It is part of the foundation's agreement. So that our readers are not misled, the "Patriarch Hall" is a nice conference hall, not some spiritual chamber where the icons are covered in sackcloth and the hall used for nefarious purposes hidden from the public eye. The foundation rents it for appropriate purposes and the church has use of it for meetings and conferences as well.

If Assistant Dean Ryazantsev's comments, which I believe have been twisted to suit the claims of certain groups, are correct, then each Sunday when the Gospels are read, the reader stands on a spot the church has no right to occupy. At the end of the liturgy when the sermon is presented, the presiding priest which is often Ryazantsev himself, stands at a spot where he should not occupy. When the sanctified bread and wine are mixed and then brought from the Altar and thru the "royal doors" and out to the people, the holy elements trespass where they should not occupy. When the President and Prime Minister ascend to their spot near the Iconostasis, they trespass where they should not occupy. Hardly what Tsar Aleksandr had in mind when the church was built.

In your scenario a person could rent a home but have no right to use the sink countertop because while everything else in the house including the kitchen would be okay, a renter does not have the right to use the sink countertop in the kitchen. It is a handy claim to back Pussy Riot, but devoid of common sense.

(Below: the gate is open in this first photo, but called "the Royal Doors" this gate is closed for part of the Orthodox liturgy during the times when the bread and wine are sanctified and transformed into the body and blood of Christ in Orthodox belief.)



Bad spot for church activities but okay for a Pussy Riot concert?


(Below: the "royal doors" are closed to the inner Altar area, a spot considered very hold to Orthodox faithful.)




Okay spot for Pussy Riot but not for church activities?


(Note: This does not mean that I condone instances where the Church and State have grown too close for constitutional comfort.)

[OlgaH]

Mendeleyev,

according to the official documents the Church was given only 7% of the building for free use (or free rent). The facilities with altar and ambon was not given to the Church and Mikhail Ryazantsev even doesn't deny such fact but he has confirmed the fact. He also confirmed that the Church has no control over the property. The Cathedral is a public place and national monument. Like a museum. The Church doesn't pay any rent.

The religious services can be performed even in the privet homes, the hospital rooms, the museums and so on, but it doesn't mean all these places are automatically and officially become religious cult places.

The Fund that operates the whole building is a secular organization.

There are more than 10 businesses rent the facilities of the monument including a company that sell fish and a car wash business.

Mendeleyev, I'm very well aware of Halls and rooms for rent and what they meant for and prices as well.

[mendeleyev]

The 7%, as I mentioned above, is part of a formula worked out to justify operational administration of the facility. It matters not which closet or which broom or which light bulb is used by the church or for common use. The foundation controls the facility but the church has responsibility for normal church functions and the foundation has a responsibility not to use the facility for purposes at odds with the spiritual mission of the church.

The Patriarch is the Dean of the Cathedral, Ryazantsev his assistant, and the church is a working church under the auspices of the ROC. It is somewhat different than many museum churches today in Russia where the government has almost complete control of the facility and the local parish is granted only limited use on Sundays. This is Russia's National Cathedral, and while the official "seat" of the Patriarch is the Danilov Monastery, the de facto seat of the Moscow Patriarchate is the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.

When Assistant Dean Ryazantsev says that he has no "control" over the property he is not giving license to Pussy Riot to stage a concert on the Ambon. He is explaining that the foundation is responsible for public rentals (some which have bothered the church, with claims of violating the spirit of the original reconstruction agreement) but it also alleged that in some cases the church has rented out halls for income as well--something that irks the foundation.

[OlgaH]

Wrong. The 7%, as I mentioned above, is part of a formula worked out to justify operational administration of the facility. It matters not which closet or which broom or which light bulb is used by the church or for common use. The foundation controls the facility but the church has responsibility for normal church functions and the foundation has a responsibility not to use the facility for purposes at odds with the spiritual mission of the church.

The Patriarch is the Dean of the Cathedral, Ryazantsev his assistant, and the church is a working church under the auspices of the ROC. It is somewhat different than many museum churches today in Russia where the government has almost complete control of the facility and the local parish is granted only limited use on Sundays. This is Russia's National Cathedral, and while the official "seat" of the Patriarch is the Danilov Monastery, the de facto seat of the Moscow Patriarchate is the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.

You are wrong, Mendeleyev, 

here is the official site and it is not a newspaper. You as a jurnalist in Russia should know this organization very well and what is going on between this organization and the Fund

I guess you read Russian
http://www.ozpp.ru/news/ozpp-prosit-kompetentnye-organy-proverit-deyatelnost-fonda-hrama-hrista-spasitelya.html

http://www.ozpp.ru/news/klyuchar-hhs-podtverdil-chto-pussy-riot-vystupali-v-chasti-hrama-ne-prinadlezhashchey-rpts.html

Check the documents attached
http://ozpp.ru/news/pussy-riot-speli-na-ne-prinadlezhashchey-rpts-chasti-hrama.html

the church has rented out halls for income

The Church has no right to rent out the facilities "общекультурного и инженерно-технического назначения" of the building that belongs to the City and operated by the Fund. Only an executive director of the Fund can make such decisions.  Read the official documents 

[newjason]

if this nonsense is the best usage of our very short time we have to live on this earth then I feel sadness and a bit of melancholy.

[BC]

Olga,

Whether wrong or right, all this was deemed irrelevant at their trial.  It's a separate issue altogether unless it comes up on appeal.

It would be interesting to see the verdict document to see what it actually says the crime was and that justifies the sentence imposed, maybe even a translation thereof?

That would at least put this discussion back on track without tangents.

You are wrong, Mendeleyev, 

here is the official site and it is not a newspaper. You as a jurnalist in Russia should know this organization very well and what is going on between this organization and the Fund

I guess you read Russian
http://www.ozpp.ru/news/ozpp-prosit-kompetentnye-organy-proverit-deyatelnost-fonda-hrama-hrista-spasitelya.html

http://www.ozpp.ru/news/klyuchar-hhs-podtverdil-chto-pussy-riot-vystupali-v-chasti-hrama-ne-prinadlezhashchey-rpts.html

Check the documents attached
http://ozpp.ru/news/pussy-riot-speli-na-ne-prinadlezhashchey-rpts-chasti-hrama.html

The Church has no right to rent out the facilities "общекультурного и инженерно-технического назначения" of the building that belongs to the City and operated by the Fund. Only an executive director of the Fund can make such decisions.  Read the official documents 

[Ranetka]

Olga,

Whether wrong or right, all this was deemed irrelevant at their trial.  It's a separate issue altogether unless it comes up on appeal.

It would be interesting to see the verdict document to see what it actually says the crime was and that justifies the sentence imposed, maybe even a translation thereof?

That would at least put this discussion back on track without tangents.

It's 42 pages and so far I have only seen scans rather than "normal" texts. When you come across a translation I would consider the source carefully if I were you, I've seen some very liberal translation of quotes of their psychological assessments.

[BC]

It's 42 pages and so far I have only seen scans rather than "normal" texts. When you come across a translation I would consider the source carefully if I were you, I've seen some very liberal translation of quotes of their psychological assessments.

What was your overall impression?

[Ranetka]

I have not read it yet lol. The scans are hard to read to be honest, may be I'll find some typed text later.


I must say my opinion changed twice. Firstly I followed Olga's link on youtube and it really was unsettling to watch these young women looking small ind vulnerable. The way one of them speaks reminded me my friend. I took time out of discussion because I just was not sure. PLus all the talk about who church belonged to disinterested me.


Then I came across a blog where people were commenting more from law point of view. About how hatred can prove in criminal process etc. I found myself agreeing with the court again:-)

[Ranetka]

What was your overall impression?

http://richard-grm.livejournal.com/184913.html


i forgot do you read Russian? This looks like interesting comment to me. The blogger is analysis the verdict from law point of view.

[Ranetka]

If we have a rainy day tomorrow and I feel too tired to do anything useful after dancing the night away tonight (Bank holiday Monday!!!!!! Yay) I will translate some of his points, he's good I think. Overall he agrees with the verdict and says the judge is a good professional.

[OlgaH]

Olga,

Whether wrong or right, all this was deemed irrelevant at their trial.  It's a separate issue altogether unless it comes up on appeal.

It would be interesting to see the verdict document to see what it actually says the crime was and that justifies the sentence imposed, maybe even a translation thereof?

That would at least put this discussion back on track without tangents.

Yeah, I wonder why it was deemed irrelevant... like defence experts was not allowed 

[OlgaH]

It's 42 pages and so far I have only seen scans rather than "normal" texts. When you come across a translation I would consider the source carefully if I were you, I've seen some very liberal translation of quotes of their psychological assessments.

Ranetka, I have no problem to read the documents. I guess you know what the Sotiety of the Consumer Rights Protection is 

[OlgaH]

http://richard-grm.livejournal.com/184913.html


i forgot do you read Russian? This looks like interesting comment to me. The blogger is analysis the verdict from law point of view.

Doesn't sound to me like from law point     

[Ranetka]

Ranetka, I have no problem to read the documents. I guess you know what the Sotiety of the Consumer Rights Protection is 

I do of course. If you found the link with "normal text" could you post it please. Am I missing something?

[Ranetka]

Doesn't sound to me like from law point     

I doubt we can find any common ground on this topic unfortunately.