The case of double standards: if "bitch" is a tender word, then "beast" is an insult.

      One of the "substantial pieces of evidence" that "one administrative person" (Gorelov) insulted "another special subject" (Pelevina) was the official "linguistic study" conducted by Associate Professor of the Department of Russian and Foreign Literature Ksenia Litsareva. In which, over four pages, Ksenia Stanislavovna fervently argues that the word "cattle," allegedly used by Gorelov in the probable correspondence between two people, is offensive — with the clear aim of "humiliating the lady."

      Moreover, there was no evidence that Nikita Vasilyevich personally wrote "such cattle" (which does not particularly fit the lexicon of a person who served on the "front" for almost two years), nor that he sent the "message" specifically to Victoria Valeryevna, and that she received it — Ksenia Stanislavovna had none and could not have any. Because if one screenshot indicates "Gorelov," then the second screenshot does not show the name of the probable addressee... is absent. Considering the interface of the messenger "Telegram," in personal messages with an open dialogue, the recipient is not indicated; moreover, a user can rename any contact to either Gorelov or another official or high-ranking person and "attribute" any expressions to them, including unpleasant ones, previously received from another interlocutor. But this did not prevent the "expert" from crafting an "accusatory" conclusion against Gorelov from March 9 to 11.

      By the way, the editorial office has a valuable rare document dated 2012, in which the same Litsareva enthusiastically lays a positively good foundation for the word "bitch," with which one of the Kirov publications "awarded" psychotherapist Anatoly Kashpirovsky. According to the "expert," the word is literary and frequently used. And merely — in the case of then 73-year-old Anatoly Mikhailovich — denotes "a female dog."

      Prosecutorial symbiotes?

      Interestingly, the head of Sosnovka learned about the initiation of administrative proceedings against him and... the completion of the "linguistic study" on the same day — April 14 — at the district prosecutor's office. At the same time, the agency, positioning itself as a state body controlling the enforcement of the law, did not find it necessary to notify Gorelov about the transfer of screenshots to "expert Litsareva."

      Also, the prosecutor's office, probably due to forgetfulness, did not recall that Nikita Vasilyevich has the right not only to know about the appointment and conduct of the "study" but also to ask his questions, as well as to express distrust and challenge the "linguistic specialist." There were quite objective reasons for this, as before starting her political career, Victoria Pelevina worked as a Russian language teacher at the Vyatskopolyanskaya secondary school. Having received her diploma from the Faculty of Russian Language and Literature at the Kirov Pedagogical Institute in 1991, Ksenia Stanislavovna was the head of that faculty.

      Did they dream of "waving goodbye" to the "Farewell of Slavianka"?

      On April 29, the Vyatskopolyansky court considered the "administrative case" against the official Nikita Gorelov for "insulting" the official person Victoria Pelevina. However, the imposed fine obligations on him can hardly be called a "specific forceful success" in the active struggle against the "Sosnovka's rebellious and not pocket mayor."

      Especially since both the local and, with a certain degree of probability, regional leadership did not particularly hide that they had almost real hopes that the penultimate day of April would put a fat period at the end of his political career, much to the "deep happiness of Gorelov's opponents." This could be ensured by a court decision on the "disqualification of the head of administration."

      Moreover, the "disqualification" was guaranteed to Gorelov by an administrative article, the mandatory condition of which was "insult," written not by a private citizen but by a responsible official during working hours. Neither the police of Vyatskie Polyany, to which the head of the district filed a complaint, nor the local prosecutor's office, which received the materials "by jurisdiction," could prove this simply because no attempt was made to do so. Probably due to the impossibility of at least indirectly confirming that the head of the district — whether in the past or this year — received a message with the "offensive" word.

      This fully satisfied the district court, which found it sufficient to issue a decision based on two screenshots of pages in the Telegram channel, where the "receiving party" was not indicated, and the sender was marked as "Gorelov." The court explained the seemingly forced (or perhaps contractual?) proof of the correspondence events by stating that the "messenger"... would not respond to a court demand to provide confirmation of the correspondence. And... rejected the request made by Gorelov.

      By the way, there was almost firm hope for "liberating Sosnovka from Gorelov" (who audaciously encroached on the "iron authority" of the State Duma deputy Ravil Nurgaliev, owner of the "Molot-Oruzhiye" factory, whose "right hand" Nail Saitov is now a defendant in a criminal case about the "garbage house"; who openly reported the "deception of the governor," who promised funds for the repair of the bridge over Pyzhmanka; who declared his readiness to sign a settlement agreement with the "Sosnovsky Vodokanal," and more) also gave the expected decision of the Yekaterinburg Garrison Appeal Court, which allegedly intended to "reinforce" the verdict of the "Kirov garrison" on April 28 and send the people's elected Gorelov, like a deserter, back to the SVO.

      However, the Yekaterinburg military Themis "postponed until May 25," as it did not expect the defendant's appearance in the process, "having private information" that Gorelov had already gone to the SVO and even, probably, heroically laid down his life there.

      Accusatory pictures

      However, perhaps understanding that the "pictures of correspondence" provided by Victoria Pelevina and the district prosecutor's office are not just weak but counterproductive evidence, the Vyatskopolyansky court took as a basis "for the accusation" the first interrogation of Gorelov, obtained in the local police. During which Nikita Vasilyevich, without giving confessional testimony and not declaring his intention to confess, only said that he might have written something like that, possibly sent or deleted it.

      As Gorelov himself explained, he was summoned to the police for a "formal conversation" so that "they could write it off," to which he reacted quite frivolously. Since, judging by the statement of the head of the district, he allegedly insulted her back on February 18... 2025:

      "I didn't have a phone to check the information, I didn't have a lawyer to consult, but there were assurances from the police officers that obtaining evidence of my 'insulting' was impossible — after all, Victoria Valeryevna has a timer that automatically deletes all messages after four days. But when I learned that what I allegedly wrote was dated this year, and Pelevina's statement was written the next day, a real question arose: why is there only a 'blank screenshot' in the case, and not a documented fact of correspondence — although the investigation had three more days to spare."

      As the head of Sosnovka explained, upon learning in the prosecutor's office that his guilt was considered proven, the year indicated in the statement — 2025 — is "purely a technical error," he gave new testimony, denying the very possibility of "insulting the head of the district."

      "Yes, we periodically quarreled with Pelevina over work issues; rather, the head of the district never denied herself the pleasure of humiliating me at meetings or saying something nasty, assuring that 'they will put you in jail, ha-ha.' But even in such moments, I held back... At least because the lady is of age, and 'military curses' are not for women's ears.

      Gorelov believes there is direct evidence that "he did not write." Firstly, during the writing and sending of the SMS — from 19:10 to 19:20 — he was, as usual, transporting and then carrying to the doors of the house of the blind Igor Ronzhin (a Sosnovka lawyer, who had acid thrown in his face on August 4, 2025), to hand it over from hand to hand to his mother. Secondly, during his own investigation, it was established that the "offensive word" was sent from a phone whose "SIM card" is registered to "another person."

      Everyone flew past the case

      According to lawyer Tatyana Bazhina, representing the interests of the Sosnovka mayor in court, if it were up to her, she would include the trial against Gorelov in legal textbooks under the heading "What one should be ashamed of."

      "I won't tire readers with the details of how questionable evidence is interpreted in favor of the 'accused,' not the other way around. I will only mention what allows one to judge the absence of Gorelov's right to defend himself," noted the lawyer.

      As Tatyana Sergeevna explained, she filed a motion to interrogate Ksenia Litsareva.

      "I was asked: what questions do you have for her?