STATEMENT Colonel V.V.Kvachkova at the start of the trial

V.V.Kvachkov

STATEMENT

Chief of Staff of the All-Russian Public Movement "Militia of K. Minin and Pozharsky" Colonel Vladimir Kvachkov due to the start of the trial.

In order to prevent any misunderstanding or ambiguity in my personal legal position in respect of the charges brought against me, I consider it necessary to briefly state the following.

In accordance with Art. 8 of the Criminal Code grounds of criminal responsibility is an act that contains all the elements of a crime under the penal code, which includes four compulsory elements:

1) Object

2) The objective side

3) Mental

4) The subject

I was accused of committing the act under Art. 279 of the Criminal Code "armed rebellion", that is, in the organization of the armed rebellion to overthrow or change the constitutional system of the Russian Federation. In the act of which I am accused, missing 3 of the 4 elements of the offense.

The object of the crime under Art. 279 of the Criminal Code is the basis of the political system of the Russian Federation regarding the inviolability of the constitutional order. However, the current Putin regime, and he created a political system is not constitutional for the following reasons.

According to the Constitution Part 1 of Art. 3 "The bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power in the Russian Federation shall be its multinational people." Currently, this is not true and obvious. In accordance with Part 3 of the same article, "The supreme direct expression of the people of the referendum and free elections." Neither the referendum nor free elections in Russia. Part 4 of the articles of the Constitution states: "No one can usurp power in the Russian Federation. The seizure of power or usurpation of authority shall be prosecuted under federal law. " In fact, the state power in Russia invaded state criminals.

Mandatory feature of the object of the crime are protected by the social relations of value to individuals, society and the state and is the legal interest. Completely corrupt anti-national system, which launched in the country more than 30 million migrant workers, and in fact we have been subjected to alien occupation destroyed the national science, culture, education, health, industry, agriculture, defense, law and order system — in short, all aspects of our lives — not a good . Conclusion: It can not be the object of legal protection of political tyranny and oppression.

Mandatory feature of the objective side of the crime is its wrongfulness. However, armed rebellion, as a form of rebellion against tyranny and oppression is not unlawful. The preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN General Assembly, which bears the signature of Russia stated: "It is essential that human rights are protected by the rule of law in order to ensure that people are not compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression. " Thus, although the rebellion is the last, but a legitimate means to exercise the right to freedom and justice.

The effect of this document in Russia is necessary because in part 4. 15 of the Constitution states: "The generally recognized principles and norms of international law and the international treaties of the Russian Federation shall be a component part of its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation stipulates other rules than those stipulated by the law, the rules of the international treaty. " As in the Russian legislation similar provision is missing, the law of treaties.

Optional features of the objective side of the crime are socially dangerous consequences of the act. Obviously, in the case of a popular uprising, its effects will be positive changes in the society and the state. Thus, the act is not an objective party.

Mandatory feature of the offense is intentional guilt, and electives — the motive and purpose. Goal — the liberation of Russia from the national traitors and foreign invaders — the blame can not be. November 4, 1612 two Russian citizen Kuzma Minin and Dmitry Pozharsky toppled state power in the Kremlin, which is illegal, anti-Russian and anti-Orthodox. "Get up, muzhie — wrote Kuzma Minin — or can easily in perpetual slavery to the Poles, Swedes and the Jews to fall." If you reject the right of the people to revolt, then the feat of our forefathers in their subjective side would be a crime. Of course, neither the Poles nor the Swedes now in the Kremlin not, but there is plenty of Jews. Therefore guilt in the form of intent in the popular uprising for freedom, and there can not be! Thus, the act does not, and of the offense.

There is only subject I — Colonel Kvachkov, as an individual responsibility is confirmed by examination of the Serbsky Institute. So, is accused of an act referred to as "armed rebellion" absent: the object and the objective of the offense. From which it follows that the conditional case was filed in order to prosecute me for his political beliefs.

In addition, in accordance with paragraph 5, part 1, p. 73 Code of Criminal Procedure should be taken into account the circumstances precluding crime and punishable. According to Art. 37 of the Criminal Code "-defense is a legitimate act of socially beneficial behavior. Russian and other indigenous peoples of Russia are in a state of self-defense against the invasion of tens of millions of immigrants, in fact, captured Russian cities, including the capital city of our country to Moscow. Therefore rebellion against the authority of national traitors in the form of an armed rebellion in the present circumstances is an act of legitimate and necessary social behavior, and the right to self-defense are all Russian, regardless of their profession or social status.

Furthermore, according to Art. 39 of the Criminal Code in Russia there is an urgent need for an armed uprising to eliminate the risk of a direct threat to society and the state and the preservation of national sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia. Urgency — a clash of two protected interests, to save more when forced to sacrifice the good of less good. In the present circumstances the salvation of Russia has more merit than the tranquility of citizens.

Furthermore, according to Art. 41 of the Criminal Code "reasonable risk" is not a crime of injury to achieve socially useful purpose.

Establishment in Russia as Russian and other indigenous peoples as the bearer of sovereignty and the only source of power, as specified in the Constitution will inevitably require a particular risk associated with the use of weapons against the national traitors and foreign invaders. However, such a risk in this situation is quite reasonable.

The overall conclusion in the circumstances involved in the armed rebellion, both in the form of a popular uprising against tyranny and oppression is not a crime, and the duty of every citizen of Russia.

Russian Revolution is inevitable!

I have the honor.

Colonel Kvachkov.

Videos:

Like this post? Please share to your friends: