Some new documents.
(In addition to ones posted on October 5, 2008)
In that response from the New York Civil Liberties Union (dated September 30, 2008) I mailed them such a letter (let me call it "My second letter to the NYCLU"):
"New York City Liberties Union
Legal Intake Committee
125 Broad Street,
NY, NY 10004
October 9, 2008
the editor of the Russian Orthodox
Magazine "Rodnik" ("Spring"),
7314 21st Avenue #4-D
Brooklyn, New York 11204
ph. (718) 256-8024
I got your respond (dated 09.30.08) for my complaint (09.18.08). Thank you so much.
However, I would like to know, who has personally signed this response. I would like to be aware about the names of the attornies who have taken part in the discussion about the facts I provided as well.
Moreover, my complaint consisted of the 18 pages text and the 2 pages covering letter (totally 20 pages). Did they see all of them? I am asking because there was no a word about the covering letter in their response. Meanwhile, the letter contained rather interesting information.
I would appreciate it very much if you clarify my confusion regarding these my questions
On October 14, 2008 I was given a call by a woman. She presented herself as lawyer Lisa Laplace from the New York Civil Liberties Union and explained that she was calling in connection with my second letter. However, she started discussing my first letter to the NYCRU, but the second one.
She told that unfortunately the NYCLU would not be able to assist me with my matter, because as I had stated on the 5th page of my first letter... I interrupted her:
- Lisa, the only thing I would like to know is: who has personally signed the NYCLU response dated September 30, 2008, and who bears the personal responsibility for it?
From that moment her behavior seemed to be rather strange. She told me that she had no idea about that, was not able to find it out and suggested me to consider that all of the lawyers who were the members of the New York Legal Intake Committee bore the collective responsibility for that response.
- OK, Lisa, in this case... Could you call me the names of the lawers who has taken part in the discussion of the facts I provided? How many of them have been there? Do you know them personally?
It turned out that she couldn't but know them personally because, as she stated, she had taken part in the discussion herself. However, in spite of that, she said that she was not able to tell me their names. She mentioned again the collective responsibility, which all the lawyers of the New York Legal Intake Committee bore for the response to me, and summed up:
- Just go to the website www.NYCLU.org. You will see their names there and find everything you need.
I wanted to ask her, if the names of the attornies, whom she had discussed my complaint with two weeks ago, slipped her mind or they were placed in the secret list. But, I didn't dare to do that taking such a question as break of decency...
The circuit was closed.
Here is the NYCLU response letter, signed by attorney Laplace, which I got in a couple of days after our telephone conversation I have just expounded above:
NEW YORK CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION www.nyclu.org
125 Broad Street New York, NY 10004
(212) 607 3300, Fax 1(212) 607 3318
October 14, 2008
Mr. Vladimir Krylovskiy
7314 21st Avenue #4-D
Brooklyn, New York 11204
Dear Mr. Krylovskiy:
We received your second request for legal assistance from the New York Civil Liberties Union ("NYCLU") regarding your concerns about "illicit" actions by American Secret Services". As we discussed in our telephone conversation today and as also mentioned in our previous response letter dated September 30, 2008, we unfortunately will not be able to assist you in this matter.
The NYCLU is a public interest law firm that principally addresses challenges to a government law, policy, or practice affecting the constitutional rights of a significant number of people arising in the State of New York. While we receive a large number of complaints regarding violations of civil rights and civil liberties, the very few matters that we take on must have a substantiated basis for legal actions. As you state on page 5 of your letter, you are unable to accuse a specific person and can offer no evidence of the actions that concern you. And the evidence must be more than your word.
The complaint not only must raise a constitutional issue - violations of your rights by the government, but it also must be substaintiated by legal evidence. In sum, you must have objective proof beyond your claim in ordr to be able to take legal actions.
We sorry to be unable of help you, but we wish you luck in resolving this matter to your satisfaction
The New York Affiliate of the American Civil Liberties Union Thomas Frey, President , Donna Lieberman, Executive Director"
Allow me to comment this letter.
So, "We received your second request for legal assistance from the New York Civil Liberties Union..." As I would like to say: "Stop! That is not the truth, Ma'am! There have been no any my "second request for legal assistance from the New York Civil Liberties Union" whatever. Just take my second letter in your hands. What can you read? I thanked the NYCLU for the response and then wrote: "However, I would like to know, who has personally signed this response. I would like to be aware about the names of the attornies who have taken part in the discussion about the facts I provided as well".
It gets worse and worse as it goes on. "As we discussed in our telephone conversation today and as also mentioned in our previous response letter dated September 30, 2008, we unfortunately will not be able to assist you in this matter..." That is not true again! There have been no any our discussion on topic like that whatever. You merely mentioned that the NYCLU was not able to assist me because, as I stated on page 5 of my first letter... And that's it!
Here I interrupted you and changed the subject. We didn't return to it any more. Evidently, you had planned to make a discussion like that in order to have a legal possibility to mention of it in your letter. But it turned out otherwise. However, in spite of that, you said about the discussion in your letter showing things in the light as though such a discussion had taken place. For what purpose? And why did you say not a word about the real topic which was discussed in reality in our telephone conversation?
As far as page 5 of my letter is concerned... You are saying that I supposedly state that I am "unable to accuse a specific person and can offer no evidence" of the actions that concern me. But this idea is eradicated by you from the basic context of the letter. This is the well known method. Let me cite here the original extract of the text: "I can accuse nobody, prove nothing - everything is indemonstrable and difficult to catch (as it was in Moscow when KGB persecuted me for my journalistic activity). However, I am interesting in such a question. Is it possible in USA to carry out an unbiassed interdepartmental investigation regarding illicit methods of pressure upon a person by a certain state structures, which can be easily identified because of their unrestricted possibilities in overhearing his telephone and apartment, street shadowing, inspection of his correspondence?"
There is such an impression that Miss. Laplace has confined herself to reading only 4.5 pages of my complaint consisting of 18 pages, and has come to nothing more than my first document, dated April 12, 1996. Meanwhile, just 20 lines below on the same page (page 5) in the "PS" dated October 10, 2007, I said: "I have two medical reports made by two independent American doctors, saying that in April 1996 I was really poisoned with organic phosphates (poison matter affecting the central nervous system of a human being)" Is that nothing for attorney Laplace? (It is noteworthy, that both these medical reports were stolen from my apartament at one time. I had to restore them).
Moreover, there is a detailed description of a very interesting mehtod on the 6th page. The method is used by American Secret Services in order to disavow dangerous witnesses. They do that by creating faked psychiatric diagnoses.
Meanwhle, at the very end of my complaint, on page 18 one can read: "While an honest investigation (it could be interdepartmental one) I am ready to prove everything described above". Why did Miss. Laplace pass that statement over in silence? It should be interesting that it is just the 18th page which is often missing when I fax my complaint to somewhere. Each time when it happens I have to refax it.
There is another thing which seems to be strange. For some reason Miss. Laplace evades my question, if they have seen all of the pages (totally 20 pages) which were enclosed in the envelope delivered the NYCLU on September 18, 2008. In spite of my blunt question, Miss. Laplace says no a word about my covering letter. There have been no word about it in the first NYCLU response letter (dated September 30, 2008) as well. It looks like the people who have composed these responses prefer not to mention the covering letter for some reason as if it doesn't exist at all.
As far as attorney Laplace is concerned, she, as we see, has evaded all of the questions I raised in my second letter. In connection with this, I have one more question. Could I consider the New York Legal Intake Committee to bear a collective responsibility for her letter, I have just commented? For some reason there are any reference to the New York Legal Intake Committee neither in the letterhead, nor in the very text.
I wonder for what purpose attorney Laplace has composed such a letter? Whom is it advantageously for?
October 26, 2008