Neringos Venckienės advokatas Barry A. Spevack : ‘Lietuva naudoja itin brutalias ir barbariškas procedūras ir bausmes” (pildoma)

 

 

Neringos Venckienės advokatas Barry A. Spewack savo skunde rašo, kad Valstybės sekretoriaus sprendimas patenkinti Lietuvos ekstradicijos prašymą yra prieštaraujantys JAV Konstitucijai ir kad du kongresmenai jau pateikė Kongresui įstatymo pataisas, kurios leis Venckienei likti JAV, iki bus išnagrinėtas jos politinio prieglobsčio prašymas.

 

Rugsėjo 14 d.   Venckienė užpildė skundą, kurį papildė dviem punktais. Vyriausybė į juos atsakė, ir dabar pateikiamas atsakymas į vyriausybės išreikštą poziciją.

Vyriausybė nurodė, kad ekstradicijos procedūrą nustato valstybės sekretorius, ir teismai turi mažai galių kištis į ekstradicijos procedūrą. Vyriausybė dar kartą patvirtino, kad ne teismų reikalas kištis į ekstradicijos procedūrą, ir kad tai yra valstybės sekretoriaus kompetencija.

Toliau advokatas vardina bylas, tačiau nurodo, kad JAV Apeliacinis teismas  (Seventh Circuit) nusprendė, kad ekstradicijos tvarka negali būti taikoma naudojant Konstitucijos draudžiamus  diskriminacinius faktorius, kaip rasė, religija, lytis, kilmės šalis ar politiniai įsitikinimai. Šis teismas taip pat nurodė,  kad ekstradicija negali būti vykdoma “jeigu užsienio šalis ir jos teisės sistema naudoja itin brutalius ir barbariškus procedūras ir bausmes” ( ang. „in accordance with such other exceptional constitutional limitations as may exist because of particularly atrocious procedures or punishments employed by the foreign jurisdiction.”).  Burt, 737 F.3d at 1486.

Pasak advokato,  Valstybės sekretoriaus pozicija “jokio tyrimo” dėl ekstradicijos prieštarauja minėtam Apeliacinio teismo sprendimui, kad žmogus negali būti išduotas užsienio valstybei, kuri naudoja “barbariškus metodus”.

Jis kaip pavyzdį remiasi Burto pavyzdžio, ir nurodo, kad Venckienė nežinojo, kad teismas atmetė šį argumentą.

Nors JAV Aukščiausias teismas  Burto byloje nepasisakė dėl Apeliacinio teismo argumento, tačiau, kaip nurodė vyriausybė, jis pabrėžė, kad tai ne teismų vaidmuo apibrėžti humanitarinius klausimus.

Nors Burto byloje teismas galiausiai patvirtino jo ekstradiciją, tačiau jis apsvarstė, ar ekstradicijos klausimo sustabdymas yra  priežastis atmesti ekstradicijos prašymą.

Šioje byloje laikas tarp pareiškėjo atvykimo į JAV ir ekstradicijos prašymo nagrinėjimo yra trumpesnis – penki metai – tačiau įvertinus aplinkybes turi būti teismo įvertintas kaip pagrindas pasilikti JAV, kol toks ilgas ekstradicijos prašymo pateikimas gali būti paaiškintas.

Norėdama atkreipti teismo dėmesį, kad kaip ir Burto byloje, kai teismas nurodė, kad “užsienio šalis naudoja barbariškus metodus”, Venckienė  pateikė kelis pavyzdžius, kaip Lietuva ją persekioja ir tie metodai tikrai yra labai abejotini, kurie tik patvirtina jos abejones kad ji negalės naudotis tomis teisinėmis priemonėmis, kurios  egzistuoja modernioje teisinėje valstybėje.

Venckienė nurodo, kas atsitiko  Lietuvoje iki šiol. Ji kaltinama nusikaltimais, kuriuos padarė Lietuvoje tuo metu, kai turėjo teisinę neliečiamybę. Ji buvo persekiojama, nors ir turėjo teisinę neliečiamybę. Tada ji tapo Lietuvos parlamento nare, ir vėl įgijo teisinę neliečiamybės, tačiau to vėl buvo nepaisoma.  Lietuvos įstatymai jai negaliojo (The statute of limitations for the offenses lapsed so Lithuania resurrected the statute of limitations).

Tačiau visi šie kaltinimai jos adresu pagal savo prigimtį buvo sąskaitų suvedinėjimas, nukreipti į vieną asmenį , ir tokie kaltinimai apskritai niekur kitur nėra pareiškiami ( Notably, these changes were in the nature of odious bills of attainder[1], directed at a specific individual and inapplicable to the public at large).

Lietuva pateikė begalę kaltinimų Venckienei, kuriuos JAV teismas atmetė kaip netinkamus ekstradicijai , nes JAV jie niekada net nebūtų laikomi kriminaliniais nusikaltimais.

(Kaip žinia, Lietuvos generalinė prokuratūra iš pradžių į JAV nusiuntė ekstradicijos prašymą dėl neva N. Venskienės padarytos 39 nusikalstamos veikos, teismo nutartimi nustatyta, kad N. Venckienė įtariama, padariusi 35 nusikalstamas veikas – 5 nusikalstamos veikos priskiriamos prie apysunkių nusikaltimų, 30 nusikalstamų veikų priskiriamos prie nesunkių nusikalstamų veikų. Teismas nutartyje „nutylėjo“ ir dar keletą prokuroro metamų N. Venckienei įtarimų – pagal BK 119 straipsnį „Šnipinėjimas“, 121 straipsnį „Antikonstitucinių grupių ar organizacijų kūrimas ir veikla“, 123 straipsnį „Piktnaudžiavimas oficialiais įgaliojimais“

 

Paskutinis BK straipsnis pripažįsta kaltu tą, „kas būdamas įgaliotas atstovauti Lietuvos Respublikai palaikant santykius su kita valstybe ar kitos valstybės organizacija ar tarptautinėje viešojoje organizacijoje viršijo įgaliojimus arba sąmoningai neatliko pareigų, arba netinkamai jas atliko ir dėl to padarė Lietuvos Respublikos interesams prieštaraujančią veiką, dėl kurios padaryta ar galėjo būti padaryta didelės žalos“.

 

Teismas nustatė, kad faktinių duomenų, leidžiančių manyti, jog įtariamoji padarė jai inkriminuojamas nusikalstamas veikas, pakanka, tai – pareiškimai ir pranešimai, nukentėjusiųjų ir liudytojų parodymai, dokumentai, vaizdo įrašai, teismų sprendimai, informacija viešoje erdvėje, kiti ikiteisminio tyrimo metu surinkti įrodymai. Visa tai atsispindi ikiteisminio tyrimo medžiagoje, kuri sudaryta iš penkių į vieną sujungtų ikiteisminių tyrimų.

 

Didžiąją  įtarimų dalį sudaro nusikalstamos veikos, kuriomis N. Venckienė, „veikdama organizuotoje grupėje ir kartu su Audrone Skučiene jai vadovaudama“ nurodydavo asmenims sekti A. Ūsą ir jo artimuosius, L. Stankūnaitę, advokatą G. Černiauską, advokatę L. Kraujutaitienę, Milinių šeimos narius, antstolė S. Vaicekauskienę ir kitus asmenis, rikti apie juos informaciją, o vėliau kai kuriuos duomenis viešai paskelbti. Nemažai nusikalstamos veikos epizodų N. Venckienei inkriminuojama už tai, kad ji apšmeižė mirusį (taip rašoma teismo nutartyje) teisėją J. Furmanavičių, V. Milinį ir A. Ūsą.

 

Buvusi teisėja ir Seimo narė kaltinama ir piktnaudžiavimu tarnyba, padarant didelę – 7 327,76 Lt žalą valstybei, kai savo veiksmais trukdė vykdyti teismo sprendimą, bei organizavimu Seimo nario Ryto Kupčinsko padėjėjos Ramintos Baltuškienės piktnaudžiavimą tarnyba, kai, siekdama sutrukdyti teismo sprendimo vykdymą, davė nurodymus kreiptis į įvairias valstybės institucijas, o gautus atsakymus perduoti jai. Iš teismo nutarties neaišku, ar Seimo nario R. Kupčinsko padėjėjai R. Baltuškienei yra pareikšti kaltinimai piktnaudžiavimu tarnyba, kurį suorganizavo N. Venckienė (taip rašoma teismo nutartyje).

 

Prokuroras teigia, kad savo viešais pasisakymais įvairiose transliuojamose laidose, kaip antai, „Akistata“, „Paskutinė instancija“ ir kt., bei savo knygoje „Drąsiaus viltis – išgelbėti mergaitę“, N. Venckienė menkina mūsų valstybės autoritetą, žemina prokurorus, teisingumą vykdančius teismus, tuo pakirsdama žmonių pasitikėjimą mūsų valstybės teisine sistema.

 

Už tai, kad keli organizuotos asmenų grupės nariai viešai pasisakė, jog Lietuvoje reikia pučo-perversmo, Maidano, visas vyriausybes ir parlamentus reikia susprogdinti ir pastatyti iš naujo,  N. Venckienė yra įtariama viešais raginimais smurtu pažeisti Lietuvos Respublikos suverenitetą.

 

2010 m. vasario 10 d. nesankcionuoto mitingo metu prie Kauno apygardos prokuratūros pastato N. Venckienės mažametis sūnus Karolis Venckus su nenustatytais mažamečiais asmenimis sugiedojo iškraipytą Lietuvos Respublikos himno tekstą. Dėl šio fakto N. Venckienei reiškiami įtarimai dėl valstybės simbolių išniekinimo – aut. pastaba).

Todėl Venckienė ir mano, kad Lietuvos valdžia jos atžvilgiu naudoja  “barbariškas procedūras” („atrocious procedures.”). ir ji įsitikinusi, kad tokios pačios “barbariškos procedūros” bus taikomos jos atžvilgiu, jeigu ji bus sugražinta į Lietuvą. Ir ją teis ta pati teismų sistema, kuri vieną kartą ją jau pavadino “teisinės sistemos pūliniu” ir “visos  valstybės problema”.

Savo skunde Venckienė nurodė, kad yra persekiojama ir visa jos šeima, tačiau vyriausybė atsako, kad tie kaltinimai vargu ar gali būti traktuojami kaip „procedūros ar bausmės“.

Tačiau tie faktai kaip tik ir parodo, kad Neringa Venckienė negali tikėtis Lietuvoje objektyvaus teismo, ir kad vietos valdžia atsižvelgs į jos skundus.

Faktai įrodo priešingus dalykus. Venckienė nurodė, kad ji buvo puiki valstybės pareigūnė ir neturėjo jokių nuobaudų iki pat 2010 m., kol nepradėjo kritikuoti teismų sistemos dėl 2008 m. prasidėjusios pedofilijos istorijos.

Ir tik po to, kai Venckienė viešai sukritikavo teismų sistemą ir korupciją joje, Teismų tarybos pirmininkas pradėjo prieš ją drausmės bylą dėl „nepagarbos teismui“.

Seimo nariai nurodė, kad Venckienę Lietuvoje teis ta pati teismų sistema, kuri ją jau pasmerkė.

Todėl minėti faktai rodo, kad Venckienė nesulauks Lietuvoje teisingo ir objektyvaus teismo.

Vyriausybė nurodo, kad minėti faktai ir skundai prieš Lietuvą nėra „barbariškos bausmės“, kaip Burto byloje, ir kad jie nėra „kankinimai“, kuriuos draudžia Konvencija prieš kankinimus, ir kuriuos savo skunde mini Venckiene.

Venckienė teigė, kad tai netiesa, kad ji nepateikė įrodymų, kad Lietuvoje ji gali būti kankinami. Venckienė pateikė faktus ir įrodymus iš kitų bylų ir tribunolų nutarčių, kuriuose kritikuojamos labai žiaurios Lietuvos kalėjimų sąlygos.

Vyriausybės atsakyme visi tie faktai pateikiami kaip mažareikšmiai, o Lietuva pažadėjo pataisyti kalėjimų sąlygas, tačiau jokių įrodymų nepateikė.

Venckienė nurodė, kad kai dingo jos brolis Drąsius Kedys, Lietuvos valdžia bandė nuslėpti faktą, kad jis buvo nužudytas, ir pateikė šį nužudymą kaip nelaimingą atsitikimą.

Venckienė taip pat nurodė, kad ji, jos šeima ir sūnus sulaukė grasinimų nužudyti, vieną iš kurių beveik viešai pasiuntė vienas politiškai su pedofilais susijęs žmogus, net nesibaimindamas pasekmių.

Buvo bandoma ją nužudyti, atsukant automobilio ratą, tačiau Lietuvos valdžia į tai nekreipė jokio dėmesio.

Venckienė patvirtins, kad Lietuvos valdžia norėjo ją užčiaupti, ir dabar bando ją nubausti už tai, kad jis kovojo su politiškai korumpuota sistema. Ji taip pat tvirtina, kad Lietuvoje yra pedofilų tinklas, kurio auka tapo ir jos dukterėčia, ir kad pedofilai susiję su pedofilijos skandalu Latvijoje, kuris prasidėjo 2000 m.

Venckienė bijo, kad bus nužudyta, nes buvo nužudytas jos brolis ir daug kitų žmonių.

Advokatas Spewack taip pat nurodo, kad tokiam terminui, kaip „barbariškos procedūros ir bausmės“ („atrocious procedures and punishments.”) nėra apibrėžimo.

Todėl pareiškėja teigia, kad visos šios paminėtos aplinkybės  ir kad JAV vyriausybė negali perduoti Venckienės šaliai, kuri taip elgiasi su žmonėmis, t.y. naudoja „barbariškus metodus ir bausmes“.

‚mes negalime užsimerkti ir nematyti, kas bus toliau su Venckiene, – teigia advokatas. Jis lygina kitus ekstradicijos atvejus, ir sako, kad „turi būti pasverta, ar ekstradicija nebus fundamentaliai neteisinga“.

Ką patyrė Venckienė ir ką ji patirs ateityje Lietuvoje, yra priešinga JAV teismų sistemos sąžiningumui ir pažeidžia pagrindinius sąžiningo teismo principus.

Venckienė pripažįsta, kad valstybės sekretorius sprendžia, ar ekstradiciją prašanti šalis atitinka bent minimalius JAV keliamus standartus, tačiau jo sprendimas nėra galutinis.

Turi būti bent viešas posėdis, kuris nuspręstų, ar Lietuva atitinka minimalius JAV keliamus reikalavimus, nes kituose bylose teismas pasisakė, kad „labiau tikėtina, nei netikėtina, kad prašanti šalis elgsis su asmeniu necivilizuotai.

Vyriausybė teigia, kad pareiškėja nepateikia naujų faktų, kurie pagrįstų, kad jai pateikti politiniai kaltinimai.

Tačiau kitoje byloje teismas nusprendė, kad reikia žiūrėti, ar tuo metu šalyje vyko sukilimas ar kiti smurtiniai politiniai neramumai.

Venckienė sako, kad ji dalyvavo šiame politiniame sukilime prieš Lietuvos korumpuotą teisinę ir politinę sistemą dėl to, kad buvo išprievartauta jos dukterėčia ir nužudytas brolis.

 

Ji sukūrė politinę partiją, kuri bandė pradėti minėtų įvykių tyrimą.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

NERINGA VENCKIENE,

Petitioner,

-v-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and

C.R. Nicklin, in his Official Capacity as Warden of the Metropolitan Correctional Center, Chicago, Illinois,

Respondents.

PETITIONER’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF

AMENDED PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

I. INTRODUCTION

Following a certification order by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner Neringa Venckiene („Venckiene”) filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus seeking to prevent her extradition to Lithuania. R. 1. She concomitantly moved for a stay. R. 1 at 1. Because the Secretary of State had already ordered Venckiene extradited, the Court asked the parties to brief the issue of jurisdiction. On July 5, 2018, Venckiene filed a supplemental memorandum on the stay and jurisdictional issues. R. 29.

The Court ultimately decided it had jurisdiction but denied Venckiene’s request for a stay. R. 32. The Court directed the parties to submit briefing on the pending Petition but permitted Venckiene to amend her original petition if she so desired to 

include challenges she raised for the first time in her supplemental briefing memorandum. R. 32 at 35. Those new challenges included whether the Secretary of State had based its determination on a constitutionally impermissible basis and that two Congressmen had introduced separate bills that if passed would prevent Venckiene’s extradition until her asylum petition was heard. R. 30; R. 32 at 6.

On September 14, 2018, Venckiene filed her Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, which included the two additional challenges. R. 44. The Government has now filed a Response to the Amended Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (R. 45) and this is Petitioner’s reply.

II. PETITIONER HAS RAISED COGNIZABLE CONSTITUTIONAL ARGUMENTS

A. Due Process

As the Government points out, this court has previously ruled that the extradition process satisfies procedural due process despite the limited court review of the Secretary of State’s discretionary decision. The Government therefore argues again that it is not for the judiciary to dictate or inquire into the processes used by the Secretary of State in reaching its decision. R. 45 at 920, citing Peroff v. Hylton, 563 F.2d 1099, 1102 (4th Cir. 1977) and Escobedo v. United States, 623 F.2d 1098, 1105 (5th Cir.

1980). See also Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. 674, 702 (2008).

In Matter of Burt, 737 F.2d 1477, 1487 (7th Cir. 1984), however, the Seventh Circuit held the responding jurisdiction is required to insure an extradition order is not based on constitutionally impermissible factors, such a race, religion, sex, national origin, or political beliefs, and that extradition is accomplished „in accordance with such other exceptional constitutional limitations as may exist because of particularly atrocious procedures or punishments employed by the foreign jurisdiction.” Burt, 737 F.3d at 1486. See also Sahagian v. United States, 864 F.3d 509, 514 (1988). That protection would be rendered a nullity under a strict „no inquiry” doctrine because it would frustrate any way to determine whether the Secretary complied with those requirements.

Petitioner is not unmindful, however, that the Court rejected this argument in the original petition, and see, e.g., In re Mirela, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 33357 (D.Conn.), citing Munaf v. Green, 553 U.S. at 702. Although the Supreme Court did not specifically address the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Burt, it did hold, as the Government points out, Gov. Resp. at 3, n. 3, that it was the not the judiciary’s role to determine humanitarian issues. In Munaf, the petitioners were American citizens who voluntarily traveled to, and then allegedly committed crimes in Iraq. The matter has been raised before the Seventh Circuit as part of Petitioner’s argument that a stay should have been granted. Notably, although the Burt court ultimately authorized extradition, it did consider whether the delay in seeking extradition in that case was a reason to deny extradition. Burt, 737 F.2d at 1486-87. The delay here, so far unexplored, between Petitioner’s presence in the United States and the complaint for extradition was obviously shorter — five years – but under the circumstances should be considered by the court as a basis to deny the request until such time the reason for the delay can be explained.

Turning to Burt’s proscription against extraditing an individual in the face of „particularly atrocious procedures or punishments,” to the extent the Court would agree it remains viable unless the Seventh Circuit says otherwise, Venckiene has pointed to a series of questionable procedures Lithuania has employed in just her case suggesting that Lithuania does not intend to afford her the basic protections of a modern judicial system. She points out what has occurred in Lithuania so far. The offenses she allegedly committed in Lithuania had the protection of judicial immunity; to prosecute her despite that protection Lithuania revoked her judicial immunity. She then obtained parliamentary immunity; to prosecute her despite that protection Lithuania revoked her parliamentary immunity. The statute of limitations for the offenses lapsed so Lithuania resurrected the statute of limitations. Notably, these changes were in the nature of odious bills of attainder , directed at a specific individual and inapplicable to the public at large. Where a number of the originally included charges would never have passed muster as extraditable offenses the authorities made certain to craft some more likely to satisfy dual criminality. Venckiene submits that these are „atrocious procedures.” And these same procedures would likely persist should Venckiene be removed to Lithuania, as she would be judged by the same judiciary that has already labelled her an abscess on the judicial system and „trouble to the whole state.” See R. 44-1 at 780, 785, 788, 853, 863, 879.

In her amended petition Venckiene also notes reprisals taken against her and her family members academically; the Government responds that these allegations hardly qualify as „procedures or punishments.” R. 45 at 921. See, e.g., R. 44-1 at 840-41 But these allegations are relevant because they rebut the Government’s assurances that once in Lithuania Venckiene will have an impartial judiciary and government available to address her complaints. In fact, the evidence is otherwise. Venckiene notes for instance that „I was a dutiful civil servant and did not have any disciplinary cases against me until 2010, which coincided with my criticism of the legal system’s handling of a pedophilia case involving my brother’s daughter, which occurred in 2008.” R. 44-1 at 846. And that after she publicly criticized the court system for its corruption the Chairman of the Judicial Council subjected her to ethical hearings for „insulting the court” and censured her. Id. See also R. 44-1 at 779, 788 (supportive parliament members noting that Venckiene will be judged by those who have already condemned her). The notion that back in Lithuania she will face an impartial judiciary and government to address her complaints is not supported by what has occurred so far.

The Government nevertheless argues that these facts, along with allegations about money judgments and complaints against Lithuania based on humanitarian lawsuits do not qualify as „atrocious punishments” as envisioned in Burt, much less as „torture” under the Convention Against Torture („CAT”) that Petitioner also raises. R. 44 at 755. Venckiene submits that is not true and she has successfully presented evidence that she may be subjected to particularly atrocious punishments.  Venckiene submitted findings by other commissions and tribunals criticizing deplorable and unconscionable conditions in pretrial and prison conditions in Lithuania. R. 44 at 755¬56. The Government depreciates those findings and relegates them to a footnote. (R. 45 at 921-22 n.5). It notes that none involve prison conditions in 2018 and Lithuania made promises to address negative findings from earlier official reports. But while it is true that most findings occurred prior to 2018 and as late as 2006, and that Lithuania pledged to address and ameliorate the most egregious ones, whether Lithuania has succeeded in rectifying the poor conditions is something to be fleshed out at a full hearing.

When Venckiene’s brother, her niece’s father, mysteriously disappeared authorities tried to cover up the fact he was found murdered by officially calling it an accidental death. R. 44-1 at 876-77. Venckiene also alleges she, her husband and her son and other family members have endured death threats, one of which was made by one of the politically connected persons she accused of pedophilia, apparently without compunction about making the threat publicly. R. 44-1 at 841, 845, 856-57. She was also the subject of an apparent assassination attempt through a sabotage of her automobile. Id. at 857, 915. These actions as well cast doubt she will receive a fair hearing.

Venckiene would testify that Lithuanian authorities wanted to silence and now seek to punish her because she fought political corruption in the system. R. 44-1 at 845¬46. As a tentacle of that corruption she accused Lithuania of being complicit in a pedophilia network to which her niece fell victim, a network she suspects is related to a Latvian pedophilia scandal that broke in 2000, and which has been accused of involving „high-ranking officials and containing several other similarities to the evidence of pedophilia exhibited in Lithuania.” R. 44-1 at 846, 857. She fears for her life because several people involved in the scandal, including her brother, have been murdered. Id. at 846. Others express concern for her physical well-being as well. R. 44-1 at 880, 883.

There does not appear to be a specific definition of „atrocious procedures and punishments.” But cf. United States v. Fernandez-Morris, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1358, 1370-71(S.D. Fla. 1999), citing Rosado v. Civiletti, 621 F.2d 1179, 1197-98 (2d Cir. 1980) (petitioner cannot be denied all access to a federal court where foreign conviction was obtained without the benefit of any due process whatsoever); Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 79 (2d Cir. 1960) (closer scrutiny may be required where petitioner demonstrates that extradition would expose him to procedures or punishments that are antipathetic to the federal court’s sense of decency), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 851 (1960). Petitioner submits that attainder-like processes and procedures, vile detention conditions, and death threats apparently countenanced by the very government into whose hands the United States Government seems willing to deliver her constitute both atrocious procedures and punishments and a reason to deny extradition.

As the District Court stated in Ahmad v. Wigen, 726 F.Supp. 389, 409 (E.D.N.Y.

1989):

We cannot blind ourselves to the foreseeable and probable results of the exercise of our jurisdiction. Cf. Jhirad, 536 F.2d at 485 (requiring demanding state to show that petitioner would not be prosecuted for a crime for which the statute of limitations had run); Gallina v. Fraser, 278 F.2d 77, 79 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 364 U.S. 851, 5 L. Ed. 2d 74, 81 S. Ct. 97 (1960) („federal court’s sense of decency” may limit extradition); In re Extradition of Burt, 737 F.2d 1477, 1486-87 (7th Cir.

1984) („fundamental conceptions of fair play and decency” and „particularly atrocious procedures or punishments” may be considered by the court); Plaster v. United States, 720 F.2d 340, 348, 354 (4th Cir. 1983) („individual constitutional rights” must be weighed to determine if extradition would be „fundamentally unfair”); United States ex rel. Bloomfield v. Gengler, 507 F.2d 925, 928 (2d Cir.

1974), cert. denied, 421 U.S. 1001, 44 L. Ed. 2d 668, 95 S. Ct. 2400 (1975) (extradition may be „antipathetic to a federal court’s sense of decency”).

What Venckiene has endured and what she may endure in the future in

Lithuania is antipathetic to the federal court’s sense of decency and violates

fundamental conceptions of fair play and decency. Venckiene acknowledges that a

book of federal law would leave it to the Secretary of State to determine whether

procedures in the requesting country violate norms of due process in the United States

to the extent that extradition should be denied. But according to Burt the decision of the

Secretary of State is not inviolate. There should at least be a hearing to determine

whether Lithuania meets the minimum standards Burt requires. See Ahmed v. Wigen, 726

F.Supp. at 416 („[T]o reject the magistrate’s certification of petitioner for extradition, the

court, after an evidentiary hearing, must be satisfied that it is more probable than not

that the requesting country will treat the accused unfairly, denying him or her the

fundamental protection of due process, and will take inadequate measures to prevent

cruel and inhuman treatment.”). The Court should deny extradition here, or at least

stay the extradition until Venckiene’s long ago asylum petition is finally ruled upon, or until a hearing can be conducted on whether Burt’s standards, presently the law in the Seventh Circuit, are met.

B. Political Offenses 

The Government submits that Petitioner has presented no new facts or argument that would undermine the Magistrate Judge’s determination that the offenses at issues were not „political offenses.”

Venckiene argues the charged offenses constitute political relative offenses, i.e., otherwise common crimes committed for political purposes or in a political context. Ordinola, 478 F.3d at 596; Quinn, 783 F.2d at 794. To make that determination courts ask 1) whether an uprising or other violent political disturbance existed at the time of the charged offense, and 2) whether the charged offense was incidental to that uprising. Ornelas v. Ruiz, 161 U.S. 502, 510 (1896).

Venckiene argued she became involved in a political uprising challenging political and judicial corruption in Lithuania that manifested itself in the treatment of her niece’s pedophilia allegations and the suspicious death of her brother. Responding to that corruption Venckiene helped establish a renegade political party that opposed the status quo and called for an investigation into charges that highly regarded Lithuanian political figures were connected to an international pedophilia ring, the same ring that led to the molestation of her niece. Outside the ordinary political process Venckiene and her followers formed a resistance group whose activities included planning and executing excursions to publicly surveil, gather information against, and expose suspected child abusers. Newspaper articles quoted resistance members advocating blowing up and rebuilding the government and parliament and calling for a putsch or Maidan. Opponents characterized Venckiene as „an abscess” on the judicial system. R. 44-1 at 824. She was accused of openly calling for followers to conduct surveillance of certain targets and to breach Lithuania’s sovereignty. Id. When authorities made efforts to seize Venckiene’s niece from Venckiene’s custody resistance members erected barricades, camped out on the property, and tried to prevent the transfer from taking place. There were two such incidents and each led to violence. Separately a handful of people associated with the pedophilia allegations, including two of the accused and Venckiene’s brother, were murdered or discovered dead under suspicious circumstances.  Venckiene became the victim of an apparent assassination attempt and supporters in the United States attacked the Lithuanian president’s car when she visited the United States for a NATO summit. R. 44-1 at 917.

The incidents described above constitute rebellion against a government. They involved violence and even death. So too did the Lithuanian government’s reaction by sending in as many as 200 officers to conduct what was described as the largest civil military mobilization in Lithuanian history. Cf. In re Extradition of Gonzalez, 217 F.Supp. 717, 721 (S.D.N.Y. 1963) („A leading American case in this area establishes that the political offense exception is applicable to acts of government agents seeking to suppress an uprising, as well as to the acts of those participating in the uprising.”), citing In re Ezeta, 62 F. 972, 1002 (N.D.Cal. 1894). Whether viewed from the perspective of those spearheading the uprising or from the perspective of the government’s efforts to suppress it, this was an insurrection that turned violent and qualifies as a violent political disturbance sufficient to raise the specter of a political offense.

III. Pending Legislation

As the Government notes, Petitioner again seeks a stay from the Court based on two separate „personal bills” recently introduced into Congress. Venckiene acknowledges that no law requires a stay, but on the other hand no law prevents the court from considering one where such bills have been introduced.

This Court rejected a stay on these grounds initially because there was no way for Petitioner to establish any kind of time frame in which resolution of the bills would be considered, much less predict whether either of the two bills would be passed. R. 32 at 591. Just over three months have passed now since the Court entered its order. The asylum request at issue has a scheduled date: July 2019, now nine months away. Either the Republic of Lithuania or the United States or both did not appear in a hurry to get this proceeding started in the first place, the events at issue having occurred five years ago. It is hard to fathom why either the Republic of Lithuania, or the United States, would be harmed to wait another nine months, much less such shorter time as it will take to rule on the motion for a stay. The only person harmed would be Venckiene. 

Thus, while the case cited by the Government in the immigration context, Roumeliotis v. INS, 304 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 1962), does in fact state that a pending private bill does not impose a „duty” to delay deportation, there is no indication that a private bill (or two private bills in this case) cannot constitute a reason for a stay. Even if the Court were to entertain doubts about whether the offenses are „political” or whether the justice Venckiene may receive in Lithuania is „atrocious,” the indications that she may face physical harm or unfair retribution for her political beliefs, though ultimately matters for the Secretary of State and not the judiciary, are certainly reason enough to wait a little while longer and let the third branch of government to have its say.

IV. REQUEST FOR A STAY

To be clear, for the very reasons above Petitioner asks the Court to stay her extradition until Petitioner’s asylum petition can be considered. A ruling is expected within eight months. Applying the factors of Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418 (2009), Petitioner has established a reasonable likelihood of succeeding on the merits, either through the „political offense” defense or through positive action on not one but two private bills now before Congress that would grant that delay. There is no harm to Lithuania or the United States who delayed five years before bringing this extradition requests to the court, but there is substantial harm to Petitioner who more than five years ago established a stable and law-abiding life with her son here in the United States, promptly sought asylum, and who will likely face unfair retribution and worse should she be extradited. The public interest in „honoring” a treaty with a foreign government is clearly outweighed by the public interest in assuring that someone is not extradited to satisfy political interests when the offenses at issue arose out of an even greater international concern: safety of children.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, and based on the Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus, Petitioner requests that the order of extradition be denied. Alternatively, Petitioner asks that the order be stayed until such time that a ruling is made on Petitioner’s previously filed asylum petition, or at least until a full hearing on the merits of this habeas petition can be heard. 

Respectfully submitted, NERINGA VENCKIENE

By: /s/ Barry A. Spevack

One of her attorneys

Michael D. Monico

Barry A. Spevack

Carly A. Chocron

MONICO & SPEVACK

20 South Clark Street, Suite 700

Chicago, IL 60603

312-782-8500

Attorneys for Petitioner 

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE

Barry A. Spevack, an attorney, states that he cause a copy of the attached Reply in Support of Amended Petition for Habeas Corpus to be served on all parties through the Court’s EDF filing system on October 22, 2018.

/s/ Barry A. Spevack