The court did not understand which "secret object" the pensioner, who was heading to her apartment, had stumbled upon.

      The court found "a multitude of violations" in the "official document" of the district officer Mikhail Bezdenezhny (Leninsky District), who seemed to be "controlling" the situation of the long-standing struggle of the residents of the former dormitory of the Kirovagropromproekt institute, located at 54-a Gorky Street, against the new owner of the building, who changed its status from "apartment building" to... "non-residential object."

      Recall that in September 2017, the Rosreestr re-registered the residential nine-story building at 54-a Gorky Street as non-residential, despite the legal residence of hundreds of Kirov families. And, officially recognized as non-residential, the nine-story building was transferred that same year and, it is possible, sold to LLC "UK Gorky." In August 2020, the building passed into the ownership of JSC "Management Systems," along with the "dormitory content." This gave residents a bitter reason to joke that the state institution was "trading in people."

      On May 25, the first of the court processes against the apartment residents began, accusing them of "illegal entry into a protected object" (Article 20.17 of the Administrative Offenses Code).

      Prolonged search for "victims"

      On June 8, the Leninsky World Court "refused to consider" the administrative case, thus not "blessing" Valentina Serapionovna for a short-term stay in the IVS. And returned the case "to eliminate the existing deficiencies."

      To which the district officer Mikhail Bezdenezhny almost swore before several witnesses who came to support Valentina Soboleva, to "correct the deficiencies" and "we will attract you again." At the same time, the officer, in saying "you," probably meant all or almost all potential witnesses who came to court.

      By the way, it was Officer Mikhail Gennadyevich who questioned the author of the article regarding the statement submitted by Vasily Ilnitsky (quote from the statement: "advisor to the general director of JSC 'Management Systems' — the owner of the dormitory building), about attracting Ovchinnikova to criminal liability for "slander" and "knowingly false denunciation." He explained that he was "just figuring out the situation," where each side had "its own opinion."

      But he could not explain why for an employee of the Kirov police, the passport of a citizen of the Russian Federation, which indicates the place of residence registration — Gorky 54-a, is interpreted as nothing more than "the opinion of a pensioner."

      Judicial filtering

      By the way, the group of men who came to the court process as "we are the victims" was not invited into the courtroom, as neither in the protocol nor in the administrative case do they appear as such. Although in relation to each marginal or a reveler who did not make it home, detained by the police during the night shift, the administrative case indicates "the victim citizen" or object.

      However, the "author" of the statement was also not allowed into the court process, so he listened to the proceedings from behind the doors.

      As participants in the process reported, the judge's attention was drawn to the following facts: Soboleva was not familiarized with the police protocol and materials, which do not have the date and time of their compilation — so the assertion that the defendant was generally a participant in the "illegal entry" is quite disputable.

      Also, Valentina Serapionovna was not informed of her rights, nor were significant circumstances for the case established. For example, when and in what militant fervor the woman of quite advanced years broke into her apartment, overcoming a barrier of strong men in uniform with the inscription "security" in the foyer. This is hardly sufficient to demand that Soboleva show documents and deny her free passage into the building.

      Especially since no licenses for the activities of a private security company (PSC) or watchman supervision were presented to the court. Likewise, there was no "security" contract with the owner for protecting the building from "uninvited guests."

      "The district community": is the weak always to blame the strong?

      Interestingly, the district officer, showing extraordinary zeal outside the courtroom, immediately began questioning all the witnesses who came. But when all the interviewees "took the 51st article," he threatened them with criminal liability... And, as witnesses claim, he suggested "solving the problem amicably, before the matter goes too far."

      Moreover, "peace negotiations," in Bezdenezhny's view, mean concluding a lease agreement with the building owner for... their own residences. This is something the residents of the house have been resisting for a good ten years, as they received the right to indefinite residence in apartments "on social rental terms," mainly obtained by young specialists of the Kirovagropromproekt institute back in the Soviet Union.

      By the way, the "record holder" for the number of administrative cases is 64-year-old Irina Karachova, regarding whom the authorized officer, by his own account, "got excited" three times. Firstly, for illegal, like Soboleva, entry into a protected object. Secondly, for "illegal... defecation" (Article 20.1 of the Administrative Offenses Code of the Russian Federation). And thirdly, for allegedly being (quote) "the leader of an organized criminal group," organizing among the elderly residents of the house almost a junta rebelling against the new owners of the old dormitory.

      Recall that on May 4, Irina Karachova, as she claims, was beaten by the new owner of the building. And, being horrified at the thought that five men might beat her to death, "she urinated and defecated" ... Which probably stopped her own torture.

      By the way, lawyer Vladimir Mezentsev (known as the former representative of the Dobrynin family, seeking an investigation into the death of daughter Sofia — "the case of the death of two schoolgirls in Belaya Kholunitsa," from whose services they refused), representing the interests of the building owner, addressed the defendant with the question: was she contacting Newsler.ru not to exert pressure on the court? To which Themis responded by "removing the incorrect dilemma from the agenda."