Žymos archyvas: Ukmergės rajono apylinkės teismas

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.“


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


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.