Khodorkovsky & Lebedev Communications Center

Today, the prosecution filed motion to extend by another three months Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev’s detention in SIZO, until February 17, 2010.

The trial resumed 40 minutes late, as the courtroom was waiting for the prosecutors to show up. When they did, instead of replying to Mr. Khodorkovsky’s motion, Ms. Ibragimova launched a full-blown personal attack against Mr. Khodorkovsky.

Ms. Ibragimova chose not to respond to Mr. Khodorkovsky’s request to explain how the prosecution understands and uses certain terminology in the indictment. [In his motion, Mr. Khodorkovsky noted that it was a defendant’s right to know what he was accused of. Since it was Ms. Ibragimova who flippantly lamented that it was a shame that Mr. Khodorkovsky’s education did not enable him to understand the charges, Mr. Khodorkovsky specifically asked her to ensure that his rights as a defendant were not abridged and to explain various terms used in the indictment. –Eds.] Instead, Ms. Ibragimova, dripping sarcasm, told the court that Mr. Khodorkovsky’s motion proved once again that “he was completely unconcerned with his image and to whom narcissism was completely alien.” Otherwise, why would Mr. Khodorkovsky be discussing “donkey liquid” when talking about well-head liquid. [In his motion Mr. Khodorkovsky reminded the prosecution that Mr. Rybin, their witness, equated well-head liquid to “donkey urine.” –Eds. ] Ms. Ibragimova went on to mock Mr. Khodorkovsky as a “great Russian language scholar” who was so concerned with the correct pronunciation of certain words. [In his motion, Mr. Khodorkovsky addressed the fact that Ms. Ibragimova corrected his pronunciation of the word “motion,” and reminded her that he learned his pronunciation at the first trial from Mr. Shokhin, her colleague. –Eds.]

What happened next was entirely out of place even for the prosecution and clearly violated norms of courtroom decorum. Ms. Ibragimova told the court that Mr. Khodorkovsky seemed to be overly comfortable in determining for whom Russian was a native language and for whom it wasn’t. “In that case, you shouldn’t turn to me with requests, but with a challenge for my withdrawal, if he is not happy with the fifth line in my [personal data sheet].” [Anyone who was born in the former Soviet Union and Russia knows that the “fifth line” in the passport contains the nationality of the person. –Eds.]

Next, Ms. Ibragimova told the court that it was obvious that Mr. Khodorkovsky was a specialist in jurisprudence and [anyone a mile away could smell that]. Ms. Ibragimova took issue with Mr. Khodorkovsky referring to Ms. Ibragimova and Mr. Lakhtin as being “equivalent” of each other within the boundaries of the current process and decided to include Mr. Lebedev in her attack. Ms. Ibragimova told the court that if Mr. Lakhtin was the “equivalent of” Ms. Ibragimova, Mr. Khodorkovsky was certainly not an equivalent of Mr. Lebedev. “That hat don’t fit Sen’ka, or that sombrero don’t fit Juan,” was how Ms. Ibragimova decided to compare the defendants.

Judge Danilkin remained silent throughout Ms. Ibragimova’s rant. When she finished, he denied Mr. Khodorkovsky’s motion.

Mr. Lakhtin asked for a five minute break before responding to the rest of the defense’s motions.

After the break, Mr. Krasnov made a statement of objections to the actions of the presiding judge. Mr. Krasnov told Judge Danilkin that, in addition to allowing the prosecution carte blanche in the way they disrespect the court, by showing up 40 minutes late, he allowed Ms. Ibragimova to go on a tirade which had no relation whatsoever to this trial or to jurisprudence in general. Without even referring to a single law, Ms. Ibragimova launched crude attacks. Mr. Krasnov reminded Judge Danilkin that only yesterday he issued a warning to Mr. Lebedev for using “inappropriate phrases.” But Ms. Ibragimova’s crude tirade, regardless of the fifth line, did not merit any comments from the court. According to Mr. Krasnov, this can only lead to a situation where the judge looses control over the proceeding. Mr. Krasnov added that the defense may refuse to rise when Judge Danilkin entered the courtroom, the prosecution may continue to come later and later. Mr. Krasnov expressed the hope that the court would turn its attention to whether all participants in the trial abide by legal norms.

Judge Danilkin did not react in any way, and turned to Mr. Lakhtin, asking him to proceed. Mr. Lakhtin asked to postpone the prosecution’s responses for “four hours or so.” Judge Danilkin promptly granted Mr. Lakhtin’s request, which had Mr. Krasnov expressing outrage at not even having a chance to comment. Mr. Krasnov told the court that the defense again objected to the actions of the presiding judge.

This is when Mr. Lakhtin informed the court that he had an “oral motion” to extend Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev’s current measure of restraint until February 17, 2010. [We remind our readers that the defendants’ current measure of restraint is arrest, with detention in Matrosskaya Tishina SIZO. –Eds.]

Read Prosecutor Lakhtin's oral motion to extend Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebdev's detention >>

Mr. Lakhtin began by reminding the court of the kind of “grievous” crimes the defendants were on trial for. [In many ways, Mr. Lakhtin rehashed same arguments from his August 12 motion. –Eds.] He reminded Judge Danilkin that he’d already extended the defendants’ detention once before, with the appeals court approving of that extension. According to Mr. Lakhtin, the defendants’ situation remained analogous: their medical condition did not change; they acted as part of an organized group; having the defendants not under arrest would allow them to influence the investigation. According to Mr. Lakhtin, the latter was confirmed by transcripts of Ms. Bakhmina’s conversations with Mr. Gololobov. [Notably those are the same transcripts which prominently figured in yesterday’s motion by the defense, seeking to obtain computer disks on which these conversations were recorded. –Eds.] Mr. Lakhtin must have thought that he was on a roll, because he told the court that even Mr. Rybin confirmed that the defendants “stole oil and laundered the proceeds.” [Our readers are invited to read the summary of Mr. Rybin’s testimony to see if this is what Mr. Rybin said. –Eds.]

Mr. Lakhtin reminded the court that the defendants were already convicted of serious economic crimes and were serving appropriate sentences – which spoke to their character. Further, they are under arrest based on a court order – which fully complies with the European Convention on Human Rights. “Keeping the defendants under arrest ensures the sanctity of constitutional order and the country’s self-defense,” Mr. Lakhtin continued rolling. Mr. Lakhtin remembered Mr. Golubovich and told the court that if the defendants were to go free they would pressure witnesses by threatening them. [Mr. Lakhtin seemed to forget what he said just a minute before – that defendants are currently serving sentences, which prevents them from “going free.” –Eds.]

Mr. Lakhtin cited articles from Rossiyskaya Gazeta and Kommersant for a proposition that the defendants were involved in criminal activity. [At the end of the hearing Mr. Khodorkovsky asked to make sure that these articles were included in the transcript of today’s hearing. –Eds.]

Mr. Lakhtin told the court that Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev “hid billions, which prevents payments to real victims.” He accused them of financing various persons fleeing Russia, and went over a list of names that the prosecution sought to extradite.

Mr. Lakhtin kept plowing along. He accused Bruce Misamore of masterminding a judicial attack on Russia, citing another article from Rossiyskaya Gazeta. The YUKOS shareholder claim in the European Court of Human Rights was a pressure tactic prior to the verdict in the second trial of Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev. [Later Natalya Terehova commented that Messrs. Khodorkovsky and Lebedev basically became hostages of the situation. YUKOS shareholders are asking for $100 billion USD in damages and the prosecution thinks that the defendants should serve time for that as well. –Eds.]

In support of his motion, Mr. Lakhtin provided to the court what he called “evidence about Nevzlin, Elfimov and others” which “fully supported all of the conclusions that I made.”

The defense asked for a break and for the court to prepare a copy of a transcript of today’s proceedings, since Mr. Lakhtin filed an “oral motion” and provided a copy of the rough draft to the court secretary only.

After a 10 minute break, Mr. Rivkin asked the court to schedule the next hearing for Friday, November 13. He explained that the defense would spend Wednesday preparing their response to the prosecution’s motion, while meeting on Thursday with their clients to discuss that response. Mr. Lakhtin objected, telling the court that it should not, under any circumstances, schedule such a lengthy break. Mr. Lakhtin accused the defense of trying to delay the trial. According to Mr. Lakhtin, the defense needed less than an hour to review all of the materials he handed to the court. Judge Danilkin was not pleased that Mr. Lakhtin thought that the court could finish the transcript in about an hour as well.

After an hour and a half lunch break, Judge Danilkin informed the parties that the trial will adjourn until tomorrow.

The trial will resume on Wednesday, November 11, 14:00 Moscow Time.