Žymos archyvas: Sigita Jurgelevicienė

Cannibals. The head of Public Procurement Office gave her baby‘s brain to the psychiatrists’ company of Mr. Raimundas Alekna

Žmogėdros. Viešųjų pirkimų tarnybos vadovė atidavė vaiko smegenis „konservatnikų“ partijos vedlio Raimundo Aleknos psichiatrų kontorai

http://www.laisvaslaikrastis.lt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3198:zmogedros-viesuju-pirkimu-tarnybos-vadove-atidave-vaiko-smegenis-konservatniku-partijos-vedlio-raimundo-aleknos-psichiatru-kontorai&catid=31&Itemid=101

Some time ago I had asked the rhetorical question on the internet portal „Laisvas Laikrastis“, whether the women in Lithuania, who belong to the public authority caste, have discovered a new passion – to bear children in order to deliver them to psychiatric concentration camps. Ms. Sigita Jurgelevicienė, the head of Public Procurement Office to the Government of Lithuanian Republic, has targeted „the spike of her spear“… at her own baby. On the 22th of March 2016 the judge of Trakai District Court Ms. Asta Adamonyte – Sipkauskiene has sent a four-year-old daughter of Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene to the former Soviet KGB‘s citadel – National Forensic Psychiatry Service. By doing this the judge ordered a primary forensic psychological examination.

Ms S.Jurgeleviciene hired a flock of law advisors, who kave a systematic knowledge about how to extort the human psyche: Aivaras Alimas, family member of  Ms. Roma Sabina Alimiene,  former officer of the Persecutor‘s Office of the Soviet Union, Ms. Viktorija Civilyte, the daughter of Mr. Juozas Civilis, the former interrogator at the Law Enforcement Service of the Soviet Union, Valdemaras Buzinskas, the former interrogator at the KGB service of the Soviet Union.

I think that, implementing possible plan of the grey cardinals trio, since the year 2015 Ms S.Jurgeleviciene secretly registered her three-year-old daughter to psychiatrists.of the Mental Health Centre of Vilnius Regional Clinic and the Vilnius Centre for psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. Famous politician of Lithuania Mr. Raimundas Alekna is a managing director of the Vilnius Centre for psychotherapy and psychoanalysis and the private Hospital the Azuolyno Clinic (Azuolyno klinika).

Who could deny that Ms. Sigita Jurgelevičienė by using public procurement system helps  Mr. Raimundas Alekna to convert state budget funds in favor of his political party’s treasury? Now Ms.  S.Jurgeleviciene has free access to the psychiatrist Ms. Dalia Minialgiene, a subordinate of Mr. Raimundas Alekna. Since Summer, 2015,  Ms. S.Jurgeleviciene turned her daughter into a mental patient, makes copies of the daughter’s personal health history and turns in them to the police, Public Procecutors Office, the judge of the Ukmerge District Court Mr. Rinaldas Adamonis and the judge of the Trakai District Court Ms. Asta Adamonyte – Sipkauskiene. Ms. S.Jurgeleviciene still hopes that using these maneuvers will help „knock out“ the property of her former lover.

Psychotherapy treatment supposedly used by the  psychiatrist Ms. Dalia Minialgiene illustrates the following  example. On the 15th of  June , 2016, Miss Greta Jurgeleviciute,  the daughter of  Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene, had led her four-year-old sister S.V.S. to the medical institution – the Vilnius Centre for psychotherapy and psychoanalysis. On behalf of the child’s mother Miss Greta Jurgeleviciute had communicated with the psychiatrist Ms. Dalia Minialgiene and both agreed that the daughter of Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene should be cured by using psychotherapy treatment. According to Miss Greta Jurgeleviciute, she was waiting outside the door  until an unknown person communicated with my daughter. Waiting outside the door, Miss Greta Jurgeleviciute could not see either the little girl was left alone at the doctor‘s office, or who and  how was communicating with the girl, and she had no possibility to watch what wrong could make strangers to the little girl.

I think that Ms. S.Jurgeleviciene, the head of Public Procurement Office to the Government of Lithuanian Republic, behaved violently with her little daughter, since she left her daughter unattended, against her own will the little girl had been taken from her home and given to an unknown person, the girl had been closed and kept at working office of a medical institution without presence of her parents. I suppose that, by doing this, the human psyche of the child was being extorted. Daughter‘s father was not informed about it.

 Zigmantas Šegžda

The Head of Public Procurement Office: „I did not see the reason to arm myself. If you knock me down, I would not be able to prove also.“

Viešųjų pirkimų tarnybos vadovė „Nemačiau prasmės ginkluotis. Jei man trenktumėte, irgi neįrodyčiau.“

http://www.laisvaslaikrastis.lt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3154:viesuju-pirkimu-tarnybos-vadove-nemaciau-prasmes-ginkluotis-jei-man-trenktumete-irgi-neirodyciau&catid=31&Itemid=101

Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene, Deputy Director of Public Procurement Office to the Government of the Republic of Lithuania, has brought an action before the District Court of Ukmerge Region. Total amount of the claim – EUR 30 000.  Charges, brought by Mr. Aivaras Alimas, the lawyer of Ms. Jurgeleviciene, have clearly expressed the purpose – to get rich at the expense of the former common-law spouse at any price. Ms. Jurgeleviciene has recoursed to ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania that postulates: „Justice requires that the offender shall be punished in cases prescribed by law, his property shall be confiscated, and that the victim would be compensated for the loss.“

On the 23th of September, 2016,  Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene, Deputy Director of Public Procurement Office answered to my following questions.

Question. Prosecution document says that your former lover is suspected of threatening you make 8 life-threatening acts from October 2013 till May 2014. What urgent measures you have taken when you understood that there was a real threat to your life?

Answer. It was a very difficult moment. I was completely wrecked. I had the hope that maybe he did not implement this. The emergency measure was audio recording of conversation.  I almost did not care what would happen to me at the time. Let‘s say, when you were aggressive, I locked myself in the room.

Question. How did you prepare to defend yourself if someone attacked you by using physical violence, a hatchet, a knife, gun or anything else?

Answer. I was not going to defend myself specifically. (By saying this she was constantly smiling – author’s note). When there were threats, I appealed to the police. I also was looking for an apartment, where to move. However, I did not see the sense to arm myself, to defend myself or to go abroad. Because we raise a child, it’s pointless, since you will still have access to me. I appealed to the police three times (out of 8 cases – author’s note).

Question. Other people passively wait to be injured by attacker in order to be able to provide evidence to the police. Tell us how it was in your situation. What you’ve been waiting for?

Answer. I had been waiting until you calm down, so that we both could sit down and solve the child’s problems, decide how to live further or to divorce.

Question. You say that you have heard that someone threatened you to commit murder. In your estimation, when did your former spouse want to commit murder – right after the threat, in an hour, next day or after a month?

Answer. He might be able to plan this some day. Sometimes it seemed to me that he will attack at that time. This could happen at any time.

Question. After every “ attack“, when you understood that you were feared of, why you did not report to the police immediately? Why you did not appeal to the police next day or the week after?

Answer. At first I tried to solve the problem without the police. Because the family and the child is incompatible with the police. How the appeal to the police could make a difference? The police have been here as a last resort.

Question. Responding to „threats“ why you did not retreat away from this person, hide in another room, garage or boiler room, but instead you continued recording of conversation, just recording this hours and hours?

Answer. I retreated in the other rooms, but you walked behind me. This threat was real. You threatened to kill me not at that time, but in general. I realized that you would order the murder or develop another plan. „

Question. Judging from the data file (800 audio recordings or more), you were secretly recording conversations of people you were meeting. What purpose did you seek for by secretly audio tape-recording conversations of your former lover?

Answer. Defense purposes … I had been seeking for defense purposes.

Question. The question relates to your motivation to record the texts that are provided in proceedings. To what extent it was the question of your curiosity, your desire to know what else would be said, or maybe it was the question, that you understood, that it might be the life-threatening attack? How does the audio recording may defend you from a such „attack“?

Answer. Because, if you call the police, they would not believe the testimony of one person. If you knock me down, I would not be able to prove also.

Question. If you say that you were feared that the former lover may kill you, why did not you move to your apartment in Trakai district?

Answer. Because it would not help. Apartment in Trakai district was let. We have established here  in the countryside of Suderve. I have got a small daughter. Here is a nurse. The apartment in Trakai district is unsuitable for children to live, because the apartment was in molds. And the daughter was allergic.

Rinaldas Adamonis, judge of Ukmerge District Court, lost in criminal case defending Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene

http://www.laisvaslaikrastis.lt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3090:ukmerges-teismo-teisejas-rinaldas-adamonis-pasiklydo-viesuju-pirkimu-tarnybos-sefes-baudziamojoje-byloje&catid=31&Itemid=101

When faced the second person after the Prime Minister of the Republic of Lithuania, it’s easy to lose head in the excitement and the desire to indulge. This phenomenon,  described by Russian folk medicine, has the name of Vertigo diagnosis – dizziness and numbness in the feet. The judges are also people, so they have the right to make mistakes and get lost.

The portal „Laisvas laikrastis“ has published the opinion, that on the  23rd September, 2016, that the judge of Ukmerge region District Court Mr. Rinaldas Adamonis ordered a „punishment“ – deprived  Mr.Zigmantas Segzda of his right to enjoy his property peacefully, since Mr.Zigmantas Segzda criticised and published online publications about scandalous activities of Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene, the head of the Public Procurement Office under the Government of Lithuanian Republic.

Mr.Zigmantas Segzda has had quite a long conversation with the judge of Ukmerge region District Court Mr. Rinaldas Adamonis. Mr. Segzda wonders if the judge has understood him correctly, though  Mr. Segzda has been communicating legal arguments. On the  9th of November, 2016, Mr. Segzda  pledged a complaint before the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission regarding activities of the judge Mr. Rinaldas Adamonis assuming that the judge in a criminal case has been protected purely personal business of Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene, Deputy Director of the Public Procurement Office under the Government of Lithuanian Republic. It appears from this that Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene has been in a desperate need to adjudge 30, 000 EUR moral damages from her former lover.

On the 15th of April, 2016, the Ukmerge region District Court received the criminal case No 1-74-517/2016. Finally the judge Mr. Adamonis ordered the trial date – the 9th of September. 2016. Based on the above, the judge supposedly delayed the process for 4 months. Mr. Segzda considers, that by doing this, the judge Mr. Rinaldas Adamonis has violated the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6:

 „In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of  any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.“

 On the 4th of November, 2016, during the trial the judge Mr. Adamonis had come to a decision to reject 2 requests made by Mr. Segzda. It should be noted that the judge failed to give legal reasoning of his decision, which prevented the opportunity for Mr. Segzda to effectively challenge the court’s decision and violated the right of equal conditions to defend his legitimate interests.

On the 4th of November, 2016, the judge Mr. Adamonis explained that after the court passes sentence in a criminal case, Mr. Segzda may add some notes to the appeal on every issue, if he considers violation of his rights. It is obvious, that the judge did not avoid public speeches that predict the outcome of the case. Later on the judge pointed out again that after receiving a sentence Mr. Segzda may express his opinion on the legality of the verdict.  Mr. Segzda believes that in these speeches the judge Mr. Adamonis has disclosed his personal prejudice in giving the judgement, the judge revealed his personal prejudice against the accused, allowing to predict that Mr. Segzda is guilty. Mr. Segzda understands, that by doing this, the judge Mr. Rinaldas Adamonis has infringed the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6:

„Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.“

Based on the above, Mr. Segzda implies that the judge has offended the Judges‘ Code of Ethics of the Republic of Lithuania.

The judge of Vilnius City District Court Ms. Renata Beinoraviciene curtails the human rights in Lithuania

„Man, your residence is in the street. We will keep you on the street until you believe that everything we do with you is legitimate.“

Two judges simply drove out the man of the house, while the third judge violated of his constitutional right to go to court to redeem damages. Distinctive feature of Banana republic – the representative of armed state structures Mr. Saulius Skvernelis is about to take over the Goverment of Lithuania. When we will get a bloody mass repression is only a matter of time. We should stay greatly alarmed that in Lithuania, the heart of the European Union, the following things happen just like in some African country ruled by a military dictator.

During the 22-23th of January, 2016, I experienced a bloody torture in custody of the Police Headquarters of Kaunas County, since I wrote complaints to the prosecutor’s office and the courts. The chief of the police of  Kaunas district Mr. Darius Zukauskas has got away from the threat of liability without major losses. The investigator of the police of Kaunas County Ms. Sandra Matuseviciute, the prosecutor of Kaunas County Prosecutor’s office Mr. Audrius Meilutis, the judge of  the District Court of Kaunas City Ms. Lina Lesinskiene and the judge of the Court of  Kaunas County Mr. Olegas Sibkovas as agreed, acting together by making decisions have persistently tried to deny physical violence that happened in custody of the Police of Kaunas County. However, it is impossible to convince the person who suffered violence, that „everything we have done with you is legitimate.“

The portal „Laisvas laikrastis“ has published the opinion, that on the  23rd of September, 2016, that the judge of Ukmerge region District Court Mr. Rinaldas Adamonis ordered a „punishment“ – deprived  Mr.Zigmantas Segzda of his right to enjoy his property peacefully, since Mr.Zigmantas Segzda criticised and published online publications about scandalous activities of Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene, the head of the Public Procurement Office under the Government of Lithuanian Republic. On the 26th of October, 2016,  the judge of the Court of Vilnius County Ms. Virginija Pakalnyte-Tamosiunaite dismissed the complaint of Mr. Zigmantas Segzda regarding decision made by the judge Mr. Rinaldas Adamonis. I consider that the judge Ms. Virginija Pakalnyte-Tamosiunaite possibly concluded that it is the lawful decision to order coercive  restriction, that is nonexistent in the Code of Criminal Procedure: not to leave the place of „residence“ right on the street of the City of Vilnius. I believe that by ordering Mr. Zigmantas Segzda to spend nights on the street, the judge Ms. Virginija Pakalnyte-Tamosiunaite acted fiercely and inhuman.

On the 8th of June, 2016, Mr. Zigmantas Segzda has brought an action before the District Court of Vilnius City in Lithuania, the case No.e2-27426-871/2016, ie he has brought an action against the Republic of Lithuania, claiming that the state must compensate damages caused ty the unlawful actions of the public authorities. On the 20th of October, 2016, Mr.Zigmantas Segzda has brought an action – revised application before the Republic of Lithuania. Yet, on the 27th of October, 2016,  the judge of the District Court of Vilnius City Ms. Renata Beinoraviciene refused to accept the revised application by Mr.Zigmantas Segzda. By doing this the judge Ms. Renata Beinoraviciene possibly may have hampered the individual’s right to go to court in order to be able to defend the human rights violations. Moreover, Article 30 of the Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania  guarantees that a person whose constitutional rights or freedoms are violated shall have the right to go to court.

I think that the judge of the District Court of Vilnius City Ms. Renata Beinoraviciene had missed an opportunity to refrain from excessive free interpretation of the Constitution and other legislation.

 Zigmantas SegZda

 

Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismo teisėja Renata Beinoravičienė apkarpė asmens teisę kreiptis į teismą

http://www.laisvaslaikrastis.lt/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3062:vilniaus-miesto-apylinkes-teismo-teiseja-renata-beinoraviciene-apkarpe-asmens-teise-kreiptis-i-teisma&catid=31&Itemid=101

Dar vienas pasalūniškas kirtis Lietuvos demokratinei visuomenei. „Žmogau, tavo gyvenamoji vieta yra gatvėje. Laikysim tave gatvėje tol, kol patikėsi, kad viskas, ką su tavimi išdarinėjame, yra teisėta.“ Du teisėjai tiesiog  išvaro žmogų iš namų, o trečiasis teisėjas iš jo atima konstitucinę teisę kreiptis į teismą dėl patirtos žalos. Tai vyksta ne kokioje nors tolimoje bananų respublikoje, bet čia pat, žiauraus represinio režimo užguitoje „Šv. Marijos žemėje“. Bananų policinės respublikos skiriamasis požymis – į Lietuvos valdžią veržiasi ginkluotos valstybinės struktūros atstovas Saulius Skvernelis. Kada sulauksime kruvinų masinių represijų yra tik laiko klausimas. Turėtume gerokai sunerimti, kad toliau išdėstyti dalykai vyksta visai kaip karinio diktatoriaus valdomoje Afrikos valstybėje.

2016-ųjų sausio 22-23 d. patyriau kruviną susidorojimą Kauno apskrities  policijos komisariato areštinėje, dėl to rašiau skundus į prokuratūrą ir teismus. Kauno apskrities  policijos šefas Darius Žukauskas (visai šalia jo darbo kabineto vyko minėta egzekucija) nuo gresiančios atsakomybės išsisuko be didesnių nuostolių. Kaip susitarę, veikdami išvien, fizinio smurto veiksmus Kauno apskrities policijos komisariato areštinėje savo nutarimais ir nutartimis atkakliai bandė paneigti Kauno apskrities vyriausiojo policijos komisariato imuniteto skyriaus tyrėja Sandra Matusevičiūtė, Kauno apygardos prokuratūros organizuotų nusikaltimų ir korupcijos tyrimo skyriaus prokuroras Audrius Meilutis, Kauno apylinkės teismo teisėja Lina Lesinskienė ir Kauno apygardos teismo teisėjas Olegas Šibkovas. Tačiau kraujosruvų ant kūno ir Kauno medikų konstatuoto smurtinio fakto paneigti neįmanoma. Kaip ir neįmanoma įtikinti smurtą patyrusio asmens, kad „viskas, ką su tavimi išdarinėjome, yra teisėta.“

Portale „Laisvas laikraštis“ buvo paskelbta nuomonė, kad 2016 m. rugsėjo 23 d. Ukmergės rajono apylinkės teismo teisėjas Rinaldas Adamonis nutartimi Zigmantui Šegždai paskyrė „bausmę“ – atėmė iš jo teisę gyventi jam nuosavybės teise priklausančiame gyvenamajame name dėl tos aplinkybės, kad Zimantas Šegžda aktyviai naudojasi savo teise skųsti valstybės įstaigoms, kritikuoti ir skelbti internete publikacijas apie Viešųjų pirkimų tarnybos prie Lietuvos Respublikos Vyriausybės direktoriaus pavaduotojos Sigitos Jurgelevičienės skandalingą veiklą.  2016 m. spalio 26 d. byloje 1S-745-312/2016 Vilniaus apygardos teismo teisėja Virginija Pakalnytė-Tamošiūnaitė nutartimi atmetė  Zigmanto Šegždos skundą dėl teisėjo Rinaldo Adamonio sprendimo. Sprendžiant iš nutarties, manau, kad teisėja padarė išvadą, jog Zigmantui Šegždai paskirta teisės aktuose neegzistuojanti kardomoji priemonė – rašytinis pasižadėjimas neišvykti ir nepasišalinti iš gyvenamosios vietos Vilniuje, t.y gatvėje, yra teisėta. Galvoju, kad savo nutartimi įpareigodama mane nakvoti tiesiog gatvėje, Vilniaus apygardos teismo teisėja Virginija Pakalnytė-Tamošiūnaitė pasielgė nuožmiai ir nežmoniškai.

2016 m. spalio 20 dieną Zigmantas Šegžda Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismui padavė ieškinį dėl neturtinės žalos, atsiradusios dėl neteisėto jo sulaikymo, neteisėto procesinės prievartos priemonių pritaikymo ir BPK 176 str. 1 d. 2 p. pažeidimo, atlyginimo. Tuo jis siekia prisiteisti iš valstybės žalą, patirtą dėl neteisėtų valstybės tarnautojų veiksmų. Tačiau Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismo teisėja Renata Beinoravičienė 2016-10-27 dienos nutartimi atsisakė priimti Zigmanto Šegždos patikslintą  ieškinį ir tuo galimai suvaržė jo asmens teisę kreiptis į teismą tam, kad būtų galima apginti pažeistas žmogaus teises. Konstitucijos 30 straipsnis garantuoja, kad asmuo, kurio konstitucinės teisės ar laisvės pažeidžiamos, turi teisę kreiptis į teismą. Manau, kad Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismo teisėja Renata Beinoravičienė praleido gerą progą susilaikyti nuo pernelyg laisvo konstitucijos ir kitų teisės aktų normų interpretavimo.

Prašau portalą „Laisvas laikraštis“ paskelbti  Vilniaus miesto apylinkės teismo teisėjos Renatos Beinoravičienės atmestą ieškinį dėl neteisėto asmens sulaikymo ir procesinių prievartos priemonių pritaikymo. Ten rasite naudingų patarimų, ką daryti tuo atveju, kai asmuo savavališkai sulaikomas  ir pristatomas į policijos nuovadą.

Zigmantas Šegžda

Vilnius County Prosecutor‘s Office (Chief Mr. Ramutis Jancevicius) challenges a legal system in Lithuania

Themis

Prokuroro Ramučio Jancevičiaus prokuratūra pareiškė nepagarbą teismui ir žmogaus teisėms

http://www.zynios.lt/lietuvoje/prokuroro-ramucio-janceviciaus-prokuratura-pareiske-nepagarba-teismui-ir-zmogaus-teisems

 

On the 13th of July, 2016, Mr.Zigmantas Segzda lodged a complaint to the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Lithuania Mr. Evaldas Pasilis. Mr.Zigmantas Segzda believes that the following prosecutors of Vilnius County Prosecutor‘s Office violated principles of  the Prosecutors‘ Code of Lithuanian Republic: Chief prosecutor Mr. Ramutis Jancevicius, prosecutor Mr. Gediminas Bernotavicius, prosecutor Mr. Vilius Paulauskas and prosecutor Mr. Ricardas Kubilius.

In September, 2015, a public prosecutor Mr. Ricardas Kubilius has taken control over the pre-trial investigation, case No. 57-1-0699-14. The party concerned in this case is Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene, the head of the Public Procurement Office under the Government of Lithuanian Republic. It appears from the case materials, that prosecutor Mr. Vilius Paulauskas, a son of  the leader of the Labour Party, the member of Lithuanian Parliament Mr. Arturas Paulauskas, has actively protected interests of Ms. Sigita Jurgeleviciene during the pre-trial investigation.

On the 7th of July, 2016, prosecutor Mr. Ricardas Kubilius had not appeared to a public hearing at Ukmergė region District Court. A public prosecutor Mr. Julius Gelumbauskas (fromVilnius Regional Prosecutor’s Office, Seventh Division) has asked the court to postpone investigation of the case, since he has been appointed to the case No. 57-1-0699-14 only on the eve of the 7th of July, thus he was unable even to read materials of the case.

The judge of Ukmerge region District Court Mr. Rinaldas Adamonis has been astonished at sudden and unexpected replacement of a prosecutor.

It appears, that on the 16th of July, 2016, Vilnius Regional prosecutor Mr. Eugenjus Papucka had made a decision to displace the prosecutor, but his letter of appointment has been delivered to prosecutor Mr. Julius Gelumbauskas only on the 4th of July, 2016.

Mr.Zigmantas Segzda considers, that by doing this Vilnius County Prosecutor‘s Office has violated the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 6:

„In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of  any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.“