They finally caught the bastard. But will they jail him? What if he shares some of his harvest with those who harvested him?
Vasyl Onopenko, Chairman of the Committee on Legal Policy: ...to appoint Zvarych Ihor Stepanovych* and Lyubashevsky Vyacheslav Polikarpovych to Lviv Administrative Court of Appeals. There are appropriate letters of nomination, appropriate...uh...qualifications...uh...there are no complaints that would prevent them from being appointed. Therefore, I move that we confirm the nomination.[Officialese form: family name, first name, patryonymic. Onopenko went on to helm the Supreme Court of Ukraine, in a BYuT-friendly role.]
Adam Martynyuk, Vice Speaker: I have no objections either. Therefore, I’m putting this to a vote. Thank you! Approved. [Judges] Zvarych and Kuchma and others are elected judges.
The Hon. Ihor Zvarych, appearing before a judicial review panel: Well, Ukrainians have this habit — just don’t jump to conclusions, I’ll finish my point — to “sow” an offi...a new office when they come — some with kopiykas, some with hryvnias, some with dollars.
President Yushchenko: Still, I’m convinced that it will now take us quite some to find Judge Zvarych. I think bringing him to justice will probably be hard to do physically. But the problem does not lie in Judge Zvarych only. We can talk about the entire system being that way.
Since Zvarych knows so much about tradition, he should know the story of Judge Sisamnes, as told by Herodotus and later depicted in works of art:
Alas! alas! how are the commons oppressed By that vile iudge, Sisamnes by name! I doo not know how it should be redressed!
...
My complaint is, O mighty king, against that iudge you by, Whose careles deeds, gain to receive, hath made the commons cry. He, by taking bribes and gifts, the poore he doth oppresse, Taking releefe from infants yong, widows, and fatherles.
On Tuesday, President Yushchenko threw a grand Putin-style annual press conference. With Ukraine being more democratic than Russia, he had to answer the most democratic question.
Serhiy Leshchenko, Ukrayinska Pravda: The question that drew the greatest amount of feedback — on all of the three web sites — I think most people present here know it, as do you, Viktor Andriyovych. The question reads as follows: “Dear Mr. President, please tell us how much we, the ordinary people, should pay you so that you, along with all the MPs, ministers, and government officials, will leave the country forever and will not stand in the way of Ukraine’s normal development?” This question generated 85,850 votes and the greatest number of votes on our sites as well. Thank you, in advance, for answering.
President Yushchenko: Thank you, Mr. Serhiy. Well, first of all, I was thinking whether I should…answer it in as humo…in as humorous a manner as this question is being asked. Obviously, this question is a provocative one. Obviously, it’s being asked for posturing. It’s not all that important how one answers it. But I would like to add a somewhat serious note here. You know, dear authors of this question…though, let me tell you a secret: two-thirds of the authors of this question are not from Ukraine — or represent non-Ukrainian outlets. But that’s alright. That’s how in Ukraine they got used to viewing various aspects of domestic policy, which solely pertains to the affairs of this state, this government. Very often, we can’t even formulate a question without “tips.” But, alright, let’s set emotions aside. We’re talking about people, dear nation, dear journalists, whom you elected. I think you elected every single MP who’s in Parliament today. Every minister who works today is a person who, as a rule, previously worked as an MP in the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and who received electoral support, including the support of those people who are asking these questions, apparently.
This question is not as banal as it seems. It’s a question that spurs the creation of common responsibility of those who were elected and those who elect. It’s a rhetorical question: The government merely reflects the people, although I don’t accept this notion because the government, a true government, I am convinced, should be a few steps ahead, showing the nation, showing the people, the way — perhaps today some may find it impossible or infeasible — or showing the answer to the questions that are not popular. But born by the elite is a new politician who tells the nation every day: “Our choice is this. We must go there. Tomorrow, we must be there.” Like it or not, we should discuss the things that perhaps are emotional and unacceptable to some, but in the absence of this truth in the life of society, we are reverting to Asiatic society. We are reverting to feudalism. We are reverting to yesterday.
I am happy — I genuinely want to say — that you, Serhiy, have the right, as a journalist, to voice this question, because I believe that in many countries, including neighboring countries, such questions would never even get off the ground. And not only are we here today asking these questions, but we are also trying to gi…to give an answer to…for whom it is a challenge and how to deal with it.
And lastly…speaking of pay…it's corruption. Such propositions won’t cut it. We should improve relations between the government and the voter. I am convinced that a better formula for answering this question is…democratization. We should never fool around with democratic processes. We should be watchful of the processes taking place. And the fact that today is not an easy time for Ukrainian democracy — that the whim of some today to portray democracy as ineffective, that today we should revert to the mode we had four, five, six or seven years ago — this…this is also one of the contexts of our discussion today: so that we won’t have second thoughts after abandoning democracy, so that we won’t be witness to the scene of 47 million common sense people being sent on the same route.
He just didn’t get it, did he?
It was not a provocative question! It was a practical question. It was not about posturing. It was about problem-solving. It concerned the entire government machinery and political elite, including his arch-enemies and arch-friends.
A straight question needs a straight answer. Instead, we got a rambling lecture, replete with peripheral thinking. The President totally withdrew his persona from the story, unless, of course, he referred to himself as the “new politician” born by the elite.
Moving on, the President addresses Serhiy Leshchenko by the informal pronoun ти instead of the polite Ви, as required by the basic rules of ethics. (Well, that’s a great leap forward considering how the President lashed out at Leshchenko in 2005 for probing his son’s luxury lifestyle.) Anyway, not only does the President patronize the reporter, but he also makes interesting compliments about the advantages of democracy.
Speaking of democracy, shouldn’t we distinguish it from plutocracy and kleptocracy? Speaking of corruption, wasn’t it in the office of the President’s representative in Lviv oblast that The Hon. Ihor Zvarych harvested some of his bribes?
And what about that "ambulance for every village" promise championed by the President’s party in 2007? What about "lifting parliamentary immunity?" What about "one law for all?"
Moreover, because the presidential press service attributed its "two-thirds" figure to "state intelligence agencies", Ukrayinska Pravda and Korespondent demand a thorough and independent investigation of the matter. No such numbers would have been available in the first place without unauthorized access to their computers, the two news engines said.
At the same time, the two rejected the idea of an SBU investigation, citing visitor privacy concerns.
We demand that the Secretariat of the President clarify the statements made at the live-broadcast press conference.
We will deem the absence of a response as a violation of freedom of speech. Unfortunately, it has become accepted practice in Ukraine to leave socially newsworthy information made public by journalists unanswered.
Forget about Blagojevich. Forget about the penis pump judge.
Channel 1+1 presents a Ukrainian judge who claims to have borrowed — and harvested — the nearly $2M plus Hr. 2M that the SBU found in his office.
The Hon. Ihor Zvarych: I borrowed about 1,900,000 dollars from a colleague…via an I-O-U! Right on my desk, in my apartment, there was a ledger that clearly stated the types of construction works, the whos and whens, and the amounts of money allocated.
Ukrainians have this habit: to "sow" an offi...a new office — some with kopiykas, some with hryvnias, and some with dollars. [refers to the Ukrainian caroling tradition of tossing grain; panel explodes with laughter]
I appreciate your jokes and applause, but...
Here were these 10 to 20-kopiyka coins, hryvnias, dollars and all the rest that was in the package, known as “big sack one.”
Here I was falling. I’d ask them to let me use the bathroom. They mistreated me and told me they’d bring it over here and that I would relieve myself right here, on this spot. It was right here that they were throwing me around. It was from this window that I wanted to jump while suffering from this lawlessness being committed against me, and I’m not bluffing at this point. From there, I was hauled around the office by physical force.
Can you f*****g believe this? Not only does he excel in accounting, but, alas, he also dabbles in anthropology! This is the Chief Judge of Lviv Administrative Court of Appeals that deals with multimillion land and VAT rebate disputes!
After the SBU searched his office on December 3, The Hon. Ihor Zvarych checked into a private clinic, under oath not to leave town.
Dismissed from his position but not disbarred from judicial immunity yet, he then used that immunity to breach that oath. The SBU, which apparently had not placed him under surveillance, has now put out an APB on him.
One more thing: According to a bizarre article of Ukraine’s Constitution, a judge may be disbarred only after being convicted.
