RELATED TO TORTURE AT NOVO MESTO COURT VIA JOSIP BROZ TITO: Aleksandar Vučić attended together with Igor Juršič Novo mesto court beginning 2008 WHERE AFTER IGOR JURŠIČ WHOM JUDGES EVALUATED ON FUTURE CRIME AGAINST ME, ALEKSANDAR VUČIĆ TOO HAVE UNDERGO SONJA BREZNIK'S FUTURE PROCEEDING https://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2025/05/aleksandar-vucic-attended-together-with.html
OPPOSED TO WHAT BREZNIK HAVE STATED ON HER LETTER - CLEARLY I TOTALLY DISAGREED WITH ANDREJ ŠTEFANIČ'S INVESTIGATION OF INCIDENT WHICH INVOLVED STOJAN PEVEC AND REZELJ DURING
JUNE 21ST 2024 INCIDENT. CLEARY I REFERRED TO NAPECNIK AND ŠTEFANIČ'S TRIAL ON OCTOBER 25TH, 2025 AS TRIAL OF JOSEPH STALIN/MILITARY COURT PROCEDURE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE MEETING WITH TWO. CLEARLY ŠTEFANIČ LIED ABOUT EVERYTHING ON HIS REPORT TO WHICH I HAD NO RIGHT TO OBJECT DURING MEETING WITH THE TWO.
CLEARLY I REJECTED TO SIGN ANDREJ ŠTEFANIČ'S FINDINGS AT MINUTE 20 STATING ONE I DO NOT AGREE WITH ANYTHING ONE STATED AFTER ONE WOULDN'T SHOW ME EVEN VIDEO TAPE OF INCIDENT.
NAPEČNIK WILL CORRECT REPORT FOR MY SAKE ONCE HE GETS TO LJUBLJANA, BUT ALSO INSISTED ME DURING MK ULTRA PROCEDURE THAT WITHOUT SIGNING DOCUMENT I WILL BE IN NO SHAPE TO TAKE ONE TO THE STATE PROSECUTOR.
I FAILED TO MENTION ON VIDEOS THAT TWO BRAINWASHED ME WITH OTHER POLICE OFFICERS AT NOVO MESTO STATION THAT WITHOUT SIGNING THEIR DOCUMENT I WOULDN'T HAVE EVEN THE PAPER I COULD USE TO VISIT STATE PROSECUTOR WITH, BUT ITS EXACTLY WHAT TOOK PLACE...HATEFUL STALINIST FASCIST MISLEADING AND AS MURDEROUS PROCEDURE AS ONE COULD BE AND WAS ON OCTOBER 25TH, 2025 AT NOVO MESTO POLICE STATION - AGAIN.
EXISTENCE IN 1990 WITH BRITISH ROYALS SUCH AS PRINCE ANDREW AND PRINCE CHARLES OBSESSED WITH ONE. European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment SERVED IN MY CASE TO BRITISH ROYALS AS PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THEIRS - BRITISH ROYALS HAD 100% OWNERSHIP SHARE IN ONE. AGENCY MAINLY HAD GERMAN, DUTCH SCANDINAVIAN BRITISH EMPLOYEES(I also remember French) IN THERE BEFORE ONE RENAMED ITSELF INTO European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment in 1990. MADE IN LONDON 100% AND AS MURDEROUS AS IT GETS COMPELLING ME TO VISIT SERBIAN GANGSTERS INSIDE OF THE PRISONS DUE TO INHUMANE TREATMENTS OF REAL GANGSTERS.
Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) CRIME.
COMMUNITY BEGINNING IN 2010 WHEN GENOCIDE BASED ON MK ULTRA VIOLENCE BECAME IRREFUTABLY EVIDENT.
TO MISTREAT ME, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WERE PREOCCUPIED WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF GENOCIDE DEMANDING FROM ME TO ACKNOWLEDGE INFRONT OF THEM A SILENCE AGAINST CRIMINAL WESTERN ELITES AS A MUST TO REMAIN ALIVE. EUROPEAN UNION INVESTIGATION FROM EUROPEAN COMMISSION/OMBUDSMEN/ STRASBOURG OFFICIALS ENTERED IN 2014 AREAS NOVO MESTO COURT WHICH DIDN'T ALLOW ME THE RIGHT TO A TRIAL OF ANY KIND AND HAVE USED MY COMPLAINTS SUBMITTED AGAINST MURDEROUS SLOVENIAN JUSTICE SYSTEM TO DEATH THREATEN ME WTH LOCAL POLICE AND PSYCHIATRISTS EVEN FURTHER.
DOCUMENT TRANSLATION
page 1 of 7
REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA
MINISTRY OF THE INTERIOR
POLICE
Novo Mesto Police Department Novo Mesto Police Station
Ljubljanska cesta 30, 8104 Novo Mesto
T: 07 332 74 00
E: pp_novo_mesto.punm@policija.si
www.policija.si
Number: 2600-7/2024/19 (3J691-6)
Date: 25. 10. 2024
MINUTES
on the conciliation procedure
drawn up on the basis of Article 149 of the Police Tasks and Powers Act (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia, No. 15/2013, amendment 23/2015 and 10/2017 hereinafter: ZNPPol) and the second and third paragraphs of Article 5 of the Rules on the Resolution of Complaints Against the Work of Police Officers (Official Gazette, No. 54/2013) in the appeal case of the complainant Boštjan Avsec against the police officers of the Novo Mesto Police Station Stojan Pevac and Jako Recelj.
The conciliation procedure will take place at the premises of the Novo Mesto Police Station, Ljubljanska cesta 30, 8000 Novo mesto, on 25. 10. 2024, starting at 9:00 a.m.
Attendees:
1. Head of the organizational unit or authorized person
who conducts the hearing: Andrej Štefanič
2. Complainant: Boštjan Avsec
3. Police officer:/
4. Other attendees: Mojca Gosenca Krevs as the recorder and Tomaž Napečnik (Police Complaints Department).
The police officers against whom the complaint is filed were informed of the hearing for the conciliation procedure, their participation is voluntary and they did not participate in the conciliation procedure.
The conciliation procedure will be initiated by the authorized person Andrej Štefanič. The present are informed of the content of the complaint filed on 19. 7. 2024 against a police officer of the Novo Mesto Police Station by the complainant Boštjan Avsec, who was present at the hearing.
The complainant was informed of his rights, in particular the rights under the fifth and sixth paragraphs of Article 150 of the ZNPPol, and of the course of the complaint procedure.
1. Summary of the complaint under consideration and statement of the grounds for complaint and the violated human rights and fundamental freedoms
In the complaint, the complainant Boštjan Avsec accuses the police officers of the Novo Mesto Police Station of inadequate communication and work. The complainant states that the police officers acted according to the MK ULTRA scenario, as they wanted to scare him with their actions and communication, were aggressive towards him and wanted to physically confront him in the lobby of the Novo Mesto Police Station.
page 1 of 7
________________________________________________
2 of 7
In the complaint, the complainant accuses the police officers of:
inappropriate communication and attitude of the police officers in the police procedure
2. Statement of evidence obtained
To establish the factual situation in relation to the complaint, we verified the facts and circumstances and the compliance of the operations with the legal norms or norms of professional conduct and carried out the following measures:
•
photocopy of the daily work schedule for 21. 6. 2024
•
photocopy of the work order for the police officer,
obtained recordings of the video surveillance system at the police station,
•
obtained a printout of the event from the report of the police officer on duty for 21. 6. 2024,
reviewed the obtained recordings of the video surveillance system,
obtained a statement from police officer Jak Recelj,
obtained a statement from police officer Rok Rezelj,
obtained a statement from police officer Stojan Pevac,
reviewed the Rules on resolving complaints against the work of police officers,
reviewed the Act on tasks and powers of the police,
have reviewed the Police Rules,
3. Explanation of police powers and conduct of the police officer in a specific incident
Before explaining police powers and compliance of the police officer's conduct with the applicable regulations in the incident, it is necessary to explain the following provisions of the ZNPPol, which refer to the content of the appeal procedure:
•
in the appeal procedure, disagreement with the action or omission of an action by a police officer in the performance of police duties, which may constitute a violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms,
the subject of the appeal procedure cannot be objections or requests for judicial protection in misdemeanor proceedings or various documents or initiatives that do not meet the conditions set out in paragraph 1 of Article 138 of the ZNPPol, especially when they refer to disagreement with the prescribed methods and manner of work of the police or constitute a complaint against procedures or actions of police officers that were not committed while performing police duties,
in the appeal procedure, the circumstances of the implementation of the police procedure and the use of police powers,
the appeal procedure does not establish whether the person who filed the appeal committed or did not commit a criminal offence or misdemeanour. The appeal procedure does not enable the appellant to avoid criminal proceedings or misdemeanour proceedings and the prescribed sanction for a criminal offence or misdemeanour,
the appeal procedure does not establish the disciplinary, compensation, misdemeanour or criminal liability of a police officer,
the appellant is a natural or legal person whose human rights or fundamental freedoms are allegedly violated by an act or omission of a police officer in the performance of police duties. If he or she believes that a person has lost his or her life as a result of an act or omission of a police officer in the performance of police duties that constitutes a violation of human rights or fundamental freedoms, he or she may file an appeal
2 of 7
______________________________________________________
3 of 7
also filed by her widower, or a person who lived with her in an extramarital union or registered same-sex partnership, father, adoptive mother, adult brother, adult sister, adult half-brother, adult half-sister, adult child, adult adopted child or stepchild (relatives).
3.1 Ground of appeal inappropriate communication and attitude of police officers in police proceedings
Regarding the above ground of appeal, the following can be established based on the collected information and evidence:
A recording of the video surveillance system of the Novo Mesto police station was obtained, for the staircase and the lobby, in which the procedure between the complainant Boštjan Avsec and the police officers took place.
When examining the video surveillance system, it was established that the complainant Boštjan Avsec arrived at the staircase of the Novo Mesto police station at 1:59 p.m. and then entered the lobby of the police station. There he went to the police officer on duty and started a conversation, during which he placed an object in the form of a mobile phone on the counter. He did not get upset during the conversation with the police officer on duty. He took off his backpack and took out his wallet. From the wallet he handed a document to the police officer on duty, who returned it to him after a while. He then put the document and the phone in his bag. He went to the table in the lobby and sat down on a chair. There he put the document in his wallet and then everything back in his bag. At 2:08 p.m., the complainant Boštjan Avsec stood up, walked up to the police officer on duty, to whom he said something, and left the lobby of the police station and went up the stairs. The complainant Boštjan Avsec returned to the police station at 2:11 p.m. At that time, a police officer and a police officer from the OKC 1 patrol entered the lobby of the police station; there was no communication or any gestures between them. At 2:12 p.m., police officer Rok Rezelj came into the lobby of the police station, sat down at a table opposite the complainant Boštjan Avsca, and began a conversation during which she did not appear to be upset. At 2:16 p.m., police officer Rok Rezelj stood up and left the lobby of the police station and went inside. He returned to the lobby of the police station with the papers, sat down on a chair opposite the complainant Boštjan Avsca, and began a conversation with him. There was no sign of any gestures or agitation during their conversation. Judging by the hand gestures of the complainant Boštjan Avsca, it appears that he was explaining something to police officer Rok Rezelj. At 2:21 p.m., police officer Rok Rezelj stood up and went inside the police station. At 2:26 p.m., a police officer and a patrol officer from OKC 1 left the police station and went through the lobby to the official vehicle. There was no communication or gestures or any kind of gesticulation between the police officer and the complainant Boštjan Avsce.
Police officer Stojan Pevec on duty and police officer Rok Rezelj entered the lobby of the Novo Mesto police station at 2:28 p.m. The police officer on duty blocked the door to the interior of the Novo Mesto police station with an anti-slip system, which he apparently did not press hard enough. Therefore, he walked back to the door and fixed the anti-slip system. He also walked to the entrance glass door, which he fixed so that it was closed all the way. He walked back to the police officer and the complainant and started a conversation with the latter. During the conversation, the complainant stood up, then police officer Rok Rezelj also stood up and fixed the chair by pushing it to the table. No gestures or gesticulations were visible because of the mirror. During this, police officer Rezelj is holding papers in his hand, and it appears that the complainant is explaining something. During this, there is no aggressive or offensive attitude on the part of the police officers. Complainant Boštjan Avsec picks up his bag at 2:31 p.m.
3 of 7
________________________________________________
4 of 7
and continues the conversation with the police officers. During the conversation, police officer Rezelj moves his chair to the edge of the table, and the conversation continues. Police officer Rezelj moves but does not appear to be saying anything.
The complainant Boštjan Avsec left the lobby of the Novo Mesto police station at 2:32 p.m. and went outside. The police officers then went inside the police station.
After reviewing the video surveillance system footage, it was determined that the procedure with the complainant Boštjan Avsec was conducted on that day by police officer Rok Rezelj and not police officer Jaka Recelj, as he stated in his complaint.
When reviewing the daily work schedule of the police officers at the Novo Mesto police station, it was determined that police officer Rok Rezelj was on duty in the morning between 6 a.m. and 4 p.m., and police officer Jaka Recelj was on duty in the afternoon, between 4 p.m. and 2 a.m.
An interview was conducted with the police detective Jako Rezelj, who said that he did not have a procedure with the complainant Boštjan Avsec that day, although the latter mentioned him in his complaint against the work of the police officers. He allows the possibility that the complainant Boštjan Avsec confused him with his colleague Rok Rezelj, who actually had a procedure with him. However, years ago he treated the complainant Boštjan Avsec as an injured party in a criminal offense, which is why the latter probably remembered him and confused him with the police officer Rok Rezelj.
Police detective Rok Rezelj said in the interview that on 21. 6. 2024 he was performing the duties of a police detective between 6:00 and 16:00 at the Novo Mesto Police Station. The police officer on duty at the Novo Mesto Police Station, Stojan Pevec, called him and informed him that he had a client for him in the lobby of the police station. Upon arriving in the lobby, he noticed a citizen sitting there who introduced himself as Boštjan Avsec. In the interview, he asked him to state the purpose of his visit.
The complainant Boštjan Avsec said in the interview that he was requesting a detention order for the director of the Novo Mesto Police Department, Igor Juršič, and that he would request this later. On that day, he allegedly reported to the Novo Mesto Police Station because of violence against him by the Police using MK ULTRA. This violence had allegedly been perpetrated against him since he was 1 year old. Then the complainant Boštjan Avsec wanted to file a complaint against the work of the police. At that time, he went to the police officer on duty to get additional sheets of paper and a pen and returned to the complainant Boštjan Avsec. He explained to him that he could file a complaint in writing. The complainant Boštjan Avsec said that he had already written or typed the complaint on 900 pages, in English. During the conversation, the complainant told him that he was not competent or in a high enough position and that he should bring someone in a higher position. He then stood up and went to get the police officer on duty, Stojan Pevac. The latter came to the lobby and calmly explained the procedure for filing a complaint to the complainant, Boštjan Avsec, without being arrogant, aggressive or raising his voice at the complainant.
He suggested to the complainant, Boštjan Avsec, that he send the complaint, which he already had typed, to the Police's email address or send it in writing by registered mail. Boštjan Avsec then said that he would not file a complaint with the Novo Mesto Police, that he did not trust them and that the Novo Mesto Police were acting under the influence or instructions of MK ULTRA.
In an interview, police officer Stojan Pevec said that on June 21, 2024, between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., he was performing his duties as a police officer at the Novo Mesto Police Station. A citizen came to the lobby of the Novo Mesto Police Station and introduced himself as Boštjan Avsec. He also showed him
4 of 7
________________________________________________
5 of 7
personal document. During the conversation, he said that he wanted to file a report against the entire Novo Mesto police station and the director of the police department, Igor Juršič, who needed to be removed. He also mentioned that MK Ultra had been carried out against him since birth. He himself did not even know what that meant. Considering the report of Boštjan Avsce, he wanted to find out exactly what he wanted. Because he wanted the right person to file a report with, he called the police detective Rok Rezelj.
Police officer Rok Rezelj interviewed the complainant Boštjan Avsce in the lobby. Then he came inside to him, not telling him what exactly police officer Rok Rezelj had told him not to say. He entered the lobby, opening the door, which he had secured against closing with a pin that always makes a loud bang when activated. This bang apparently distracted the complainant, because he immediately began to complain about why he was aggressive. He approached him and asked him what he wanted in a normal manner, without being disrespectful to him. It was not known what the complainant Boštjan Avsec wanted to file, whether it was a criminal complaint or a complaint or some other report, because they did not know what he wanted. The complainant Boštjan Avsec kept saying that he was aggressive, but he and police officer Rezelj wanted to find out what exactly he wanted from him. It was explained to him that he could come in the morning when someone from the management was at the station, if he thought that he and police officer Rok Rezelj were not compatible enough to accept a report from him, or he could send it by mail.
In the meantime, he warned him that he was not allowed to record the proceedings in the premises of the Novo Mesto police station, and he also showed him where it was written. Boštjan Avsec then took his mobile phone out of his pocket.
As he left, Boštjan Avsec said that he would file a complaint later.
4. Complainant's statement
In the case, I say that I was presented with the minutes, as well as the tasks performed regarding my complaint.
That I do not know what MK ULTRA is, that I was not able to explain what it is, is bizarre. The aggression was carried out according to the MK ULTRA scenario when I went home and described the event on my website >>ausertimes<<. I mainly described the MK Ultra procedure to Mr. Police Officer Rezlj. The fraud that I filed against the computer was found to have several modifications. I do not visit the police station for no reason. The gentleman came to the lobby according to the MK ULTRA procedure. It was not at all because I was a senior police officer, but because he advised me to file a complaint, which I have on 1000 pages. Considering what I mentioned earlier, considering the facts that I published on my website, I found it unacceptable. This led me to conclude that there might be another police officer who would be more qualified for this type of procedure, but I didn't want to put him in a "nothing and nothing" position. This happened because he insisted that I go home and file a complaint and because he didn't explain that none of my superiors were at work. Rok Rezelj, under the influence of MK ULTRA, insisted on writing a complaint. By doing so, I felt that he wanted to fire me from the police station.
I was just interested in how to get to someone who would accept the procedure on my part and have the police investigate all my research on the website.
I have already mentioned previously that the entire case was according to the MK ULTRA scenario, there was no communication between the police officer and the police officer. There was a lot of interaction between the police officer and the police officer who left the lobby and went out of the police station, and also with me through the MK ULTRA procedure.
The most important thing about this process is that you can see one thing completely differently if it is done to you subconsciously and repeatedly, which is also brainwashing with the purpose of
5 of 7
________________________________________________
6 of 7
obtaining evidence with which the police wanted to prove my mental incompetence in real life.
If I was friendly with my colleague, I do not understand that another police officer would approach me in an arrogant manner and park there next to me, so I do not understand this arrogance of the police officer.
Since both police officers were much more physically developed in height and in kilograms, due to my cooperation with police officer Rezlj and due to Rezlj's repeated entry into the premises of Pevec, I did not feel the need for police officer Pevec to aggressively enter the lobby with him, who was not even aware of why I was at the police station that day. In the lobby of the police station, based on the repeated MK ULTRA scenario, they ensured me that Mr. Rezlj would enter the interior of the police station, as his cooperation, confronting colleagues from whom I would receive further instructions - explicitly Mr. Pevec. Considering that he also met several times during my meeting with Mr. Rezlj. After aggressively entering the lobby, here I mean the door that "slammed" and his gait and aggressive eye contact, he repeated this procedure. His aggression was repeatedly expressed towards me, as if I had come to the police station that day to provoke the police to a conflict. While Pol. Rezelj remained on the opposite side of the table. The only one still sitting was me, who was asked to stand up and face the repeated facial provocation of Mr. Pevec's eyes according to the MK ULTRA scenario. He approached me from the left side at a distance that he repeated according to the MK ULTRA scenario.
For me, this is the icing on the cake, and I have already described other things to you in any case in the primary appeal procedure and on my website.
Mr. Pevec and Mr. Rezelj committed a multitude of criminal acts during the MK ULTRA procedure, which also involved the threat of death that concerned Mr. Pevec. Mr. Pevec, like Mr. Štefanič served Director Ogulin, other directors of the NM Police in terms of controlling the MK ULTRA procedure itself, which did not interfere only with my life but also with the life of my family. By the fact that Mr. Pevec physically carried out the tasks of the Director of the Ogulin Police, Mr. Štefanič personally became acquainted with them during such procedures (not all).
After mentioning Mr. Napečnik to the 45-day appeal deadline regarding former Director Ogulin, who served former directors, as the right hand extension of the former Yugoslav state, which began genocide through the MK ULTRA procedure before I was 1 year old, I. 1972, I myself cannot recognize such a code, the 45-day appeal deadline against former PP employees in Slovenia or employees of the Republic of Slovenia as legitimate, especially I cannot recognize it as legitimate because MK ULTRA procedures are still being implemented in everyday life, which is why I stopped at the PP NM on 21. 6. 2024.
Because of this, I rejected Mr. Napečnik, after his insistence on a 45-day appeal deadline, by advising him that if necessary I would also conduct criminal proceedings against him, I gave him the case of Mr. Igor Juršič. The Novo Mesto Police Department served the state of Slovenia after its independence as part of the military court with which I had been meeting through the NM Police Department since my birth. A court that, like Stalin, did not recognize the appeal opinions of its clients, but instead of helping, carried out eliminations in the manner of Joseph Stalin.
I do not recognize the 45-day deadline for an appeal in relation to the previous representatives of the NM Police Department and other employees of the state of Slovenia. The state of Slovenia did not bother in January 1991 to conclude this case because it had other interests in the background, including the re-establishment of the Yugoslav state.
/
5. Statement at the hearing of the police officer present
6. Concluding observations of the head of the police unit or. reporter
6 of 7
________________________________________________________
7 of 7
From the reviewed available documentation relating to the incident in question, the head of the conciliation procedure, Andrej Štefanič, establishes that police officers Stojan Pevec and Rok Rezelj acted lawfully and in accordance with the regulations defining the use of police powers during the procedure with the complainant.
Regarding the complainant's reasons for complaint, the authorized representative of the head of the organizational unit defined himself in Chapter 3.
The complainant therefore agrees with the findings presented at the conciliation procedure and agrees that the procedure against Stojan Pevec and Rok Rezelj is terminated.
The hearing was concluded on
25. 10. 2024 at
11.10
a.m.
COMPLAINANT:
Boštjan Avsec
Police Complaints Department Tomaž Napečnik
SLOVENIA
REPUBLIC OF Slovenia
POL
POL
STATION
JSKA P
POLICIJSKA POL
MINISTRS
OVO MESTO
GAON MESTO
ZADEVE
SKA UPRAVA
ZA PRANAR
Secretary
Mojca Gosenca Krevs
(nythers
My tvers
HEAD OF ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT OR REPORTER
Andrej Štefanič
Deputy Chief
Police Inspector Specialist II
7 of 7
-- ANDREJ ŠTEFANIČ
HEAD OF THE ORGANIZATIONAL UNIT RAPPORTEUR
DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE INSPECTOR SPECIAIST 2
-- TOMAŽ NEPEČNIK
Directorate for Police and Other Security Tasks
Sector for Complaints Against the Police
MINISTRY OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS
DIRECTORATE FOR POLICE AND OTHER SECURITY TASKS
-- ANDREJ ŠTEFANIČ
VODJA ORGANIZACIJSKE ENOTE POROČEVALEC
NAMESTNIK NAČELNIKA POLICE INSPECTOR SPECIAIST 2
-- TOMAŽ NAPEČNIK
Direktorat za policijo in druge varnostne naloge
Sektor za pritožbe zoper policijo
MINISTRSTVO ZA NOTRANJE ZADEVE
DIREKTORAT ZA POLICIJO IN DRUGE VARNOSTNE NALOGE
REPUBLIKA SLOVENIJA
MINISTRSTVO ZA NOTRANJE ZADEVE
POLICIJA
Policijska uprava Novo mesto Policijska postaja Novo mesto
Ljubljanska cesta 30, 8104 Novo mesto
T: 07 332 74 00
E: pp_novo_mesto.punm@policija.si
www.policija.si
Številka: 2600-7/2024/19 (3J691-6)
Datum: 25. 10. 2024
ZAPISNIK
o pomiritvenem postopku
izdelan na podlagi 149. člena Zakon o nalogah in pooblastilih policije (Uradni list RS, št. 15/2013, popravek 23/2015 ter 10/2017 v nadaljevanju: ZNPPol) ter drugega in tretjegal odstavka 5. člena Pravilnika o reševanju pritožb zoper delo policistov (Uradni list, št. 54/2013) v pritožbeni zadevi pritožnika Boštjana Avsca zoper policista Policijske postaje Novo mesto Stojana Pevca in Jako Reclja.
Pomiritveni postopek poteka v prostorih Policijske postaje Novo mesto, Ljubljanska cesta 30, 8000 Novo mesto, dne 25. 10. 2024, s pričetkom ob 9.00 uri.
Navzoči:
1. Vodja organizacijske enote oziroma pooblaščena oseba,
ki vodi obravnavo: Andrej Štefanič
2. Pritožnik: Boštjan Avsec
3. Policist:/
4. Ostali navzoči: Mojca Gosenca Krevs kot zapisnikar in Tomaž Napečnik (Sektor za pritožbe zoper policijo).
O naroku za pomiritveni postopek sta bila seznanjena policista zoper katera je vložena pritožba, njihova udeležba je prostovoljna in se pomiritvenega postopka nista udeležila.
Pomiritveni postopek prične pooblaščena oseba Andrej Štefanič. Prisotne seznani s vsebino pritožbe, ki jo je dne 19. 7. 2024, zoper policista Policijske postaje Novo mesta, podal na obravnavi navzoč pritožnik Boštjan Avsec.
Pritožnik je bil seznanjen z njegovimi pravicami, zlasti s pravicami iz petega in šestega odstavka 150. člena ZNPPol, ter s potekom pritožbenega postopka.
1. Povzetek obravnavane pritožbe in navedbo pritožbenih razlogov ter kršenih človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin
V pritožbi pritožnik Boštjan Avsec policistoma Policijske postaje Novo mesto očita neustrezno komunikacijo in delo. Pritožnik navaja da sta policista delovala po scenariju MK ULTRA, saj sta ga hotela prestrašiti s svojim početjem in komunikacijo, bila do njega agresivna in z njim hotela fizično obračunati v avli policijske postaje Novo mesto.
for
page 1 of 7
________________________________________________
V pritožbi pritožnik tako policistoma očita:
neprimerno komunikacijo in odnos policistov v policijskem postopku
2. Navedba izvedenih dokazov
Za ugotovitev dejanskega stanja v zvezi s pritožbo, smo preverili dejstva in okoliščine ter skladnost poslovanja z zakonskimi normami oziroma normami dolžnostnega ravnanja in pri tem izvedli naslednje ukrepe:
•
fotokopija dnevnega razporeda dela za dne 21. 6. 2024
•
fotokopija delovnega naloga za policista,
pridobili posnetke video nadzornega sistema na policijski postaji,
•
pridobili izpis dogodka iz poročila dežurnega policista za dne 21. 6. 2024,
opravili pregled pridobljenih posnetkov video nadzornega sistema,
pridobili izjavo policista Jaka Reclja,
pridobili izjavo policista Roka Rezlja,
pridobili izjavo policista Stojana Pevca,
opravili vpogled v Pravilnik o reševanju pritožb zoper delo policistov,
opravili vpogled v Zakon o nalogah in pooblastilih policije,
opravili vpogled v Pravila policije,
3. Pojasnilo policijskih pooblastil in ravnanja polista v konkretnem dogodku
Pred pojasnitvijo policijskih pooblastil in skladnosti ravnanja policista z veljavnimi predpisi v dogodku je potrebno pojasniti naslednja določila ZNPPol, ki se nanašajo na vsebino pritožbenega postopka:
•
v pritožbenem postopku se lahko uveljavlja nestrinjanje z dejanjem ali opustitvijo dejanja policista pri opravljanju policijskih nalog, ki lahko pomeni kršitev človekovih pravic ali temeljnih svoboščin,
predmet pritožbenega postopka ne morejo biti ugovori ali zahteve za sodno varstvo v prekrškovnem postopku ali različna pisanja ali pobude, ki ne izpolnjujejo pogojev iz 1. odstavku 138. člena ZNPPol, zlasti kadar se nanašajo na ne strinjanje s predpisanimi metodami in načinom dela policiji ali pomenijo pritožbo zoper postopke ali dejanja policistov, ki niso bila storjena med opravljanjem policijski nalog,
v pritožbenem postopku se ugotavljajo okoliščine izvedbe policijskega postopka in uporaba policijskih pooblastil,
v pritožbenem postopku se ne ugotavlja, ali je oseba, ki je vložila pritožbo, storila ali ni storila kaznivega dejanja ali prekrška. S pritožbenim postopkom se pritožnik ne more izogniti kazenskem postopku ali postopku o prekršku in predpisani sankciji za kaznivo dejanje ali prekršek,
v pritožbenem postopku se ne ugotavlja disciplinske, odškodninske, prekrškovne ali kazenske odgovornosti policista,
pritožnik je fizična ali pravna oseba, ki naj bi ji bile z dejanjem ali opustitvijo dejanja policista pri opravljanju policijskih nalog kršene človekove pravice ali temeljne svoboščine. Če meni, da je oseba izgubila življenje zaradi posledic dejanja ali opustitve dejanja policista pri opravljanju policijskih nalog, ki pomenijo kršitev človekovih pravic ali temeljnih svoboščin, lahko pritožbo
2 of 7
________________________________________________
vloži tudi njen vdovec, ali oseba, ki je z njo živela v zunajzakonski skupnosti ali registrirani istospolni partnerski skupnosti, oče, mati posvojitelj, polnoletni brat, polnoletna sestra, polnoletni polbrat, polnoletna polsestra, polnoletni otrok, polnoletni posvojenec ali pastorek (svojci).
3.1 Pritožbeni razlog neprimerna komunikacija in odnos policistov v policijskem postopku
Glede navedenega pritožbenega razloga je na podlagi zbranih obvestil in dokazov ugotoviti naslednje:
Pridobljen je bil posnetek video nadzornega sistema policistke postaje Novo mesto, za stopnišče in avlo, v kateri se je dogajal postopek med pritožnikom Boštjanom Avscem in policistoma.
Pri pregledu video nadzornega sistema je bilo ugotovljeno, da je pritožnik Boštjan Avsec ob 13.59 uri prišel na stopnišče policijske postaje Novo mesto in nato vstopil v avlo policijske postaje. Tam se je napotil do dežurnega policista in pričel pogovor, med slednjim je na pult odložil predmet v obliki mobilnega telefona. Med pogovorom z dežurnim policistom se ni razburjal. Snel je nahrbtnik in iz njega vzel denarnico. Iz denarnice pa dokument katerega je izročil dežurnemu policistu, ki mu ga je čez čas vrnil nazaj. Nato je pospravil dokument in telefon v torbo. Odšel do mize v avli in se usedel na stol. Tam je dokument pospravil v denarnico nato pa vse skupaj nazaj v torbo.
Ob 14.08 uri se je pritožnik Boštjan Avsec vstal, stopil do dežurnega policista, kateremu je nekaj povedal in zapustil avlo policijske postaje ter odšel po stopnišču. Pritožnik Boštjan Avsec se je ob 14.11 uri vrnil nazaj na policijsko postajo. V tistem času sta v avlo policijske postaje vstopila policistka in policist, patrulje OKC 1, med njimi ni prišlo do komunikacije ali kakšnih gestikulacij. Ob 14.12 uri je v avlo policijske postaje prišel policist kriminalist Rok Rezelj, ki se je usedel za mizo nasproti pritožnika Boštjana Avsca in pričel z pogovorom med katerim ni bilo videti, da bi se razburjala. Policist kriminalist Rok Rezelj se je ob 14.16 uri vstal in iz avle policijske postaje odšel v notranjost. Nazaj v avlo policijske postaje se je vrnil z listi, se usedel na stol nasproti pritožnika Boštjana Avsca in z njim pričel pogovor. Med njunim pogovorom ni bilo videti kakršnih koli kretenj ali razburjanja. Po kretnjah z rokami pritožnika Boštjana Avsca je videti, da nekaj razlaga policistu kriminalistu Roku Rezlju.
Ob 14.21 uri se je policist Rok Rezelj vstal in odšel v notranjost policijske postaje. Policistka in policist, patrulje OKC 1 sta ob 14.26 uri stopila iz notranjosti policijske postaje in šla skozi avlo ven do službenega vozila. Med policistko in policistom ter pritožnikom Boštjanom Avscem ni bilo komunikacije ali kretenj ter kakršnih koli gestikulacij.
Dežurni policist Stojan Pevec in policist kriminalist Rok Rezelj sta ob 14.28 uri vstopila nazaj v avlo policijske postaje Novo mesto. Dežurni policist je vrata za v notranjost policijske postaje Novo mesto je zablokiral z proti zdrsni sistem, katerega pa očitno ni dovolj pritisnil. Zato je stopil nazaj do vrat in popravil proti zdrsni sistem. Ravno tako je stopil do vhodnih steklenih vrat, katera je popravil, da so bila zaprta do konca. Stopil je nazaj do policista in pritožnika ter pričel pogovor s slednjim. Med pogovorom se je pritožnik vstal, nato je vstal tudi policist Rok Rezelj in popravil stol, tako da ga je porinil do mize. Samih kretenj ali gestikulacij zaradi ogledala ni videti. Med tem policist Rezelj v roki drži liste, videti je da pritožnik nekaj razlaga. Med tem ni videti agresivne ali napadalne drže policistov. Pritožnik Boštjan Avsec ob 14.31 uri pobere svojo torbo
3 of 7
________________________________________________
in nadaljuje pogovor s policistoma. Med pogovorom policist Rezelj stol premakne do roba mize, pogovor se nadaljuje. Policist Rezelj se premakne ampak ni videti, da bi karkoli govoril.
Pritožnik Boštjan Avsec je 14.32 uri zapustil avlo policijske postaje Novo mesto in odide ven. Policista sta nato odšla v notranjost policijske postaje.
Po pregledu posnetkov video nadzornega sistema je bilo ugotovljeno, da je imel tega dne postopek z pritožnikom Boštjanom Avscem policist kriminalist Rok Rezelj in ne policist kriminalist Jaka Recelj, kakor je navajal v svoji pritožbi.
Pri pregledu dnevnega razporeda dela policistov policijske postaje Novo mesto je bilo ugotovljeno, da je bil v dopoldanskem času med 06.00 in 16.00 uro v službi policist kriminalist Rok Rezelj, policist kriminalist Jaka Recelj je bil v službi v popoldanskem času, med 16.00 in 02.00 uro.
Opravljen je bil razgovor s policistom kriminalistom Jakom Recljem, kateri je povedal, da tega dne ni imel postopka z pritožnikom Boštjanom Avscem, čeprav ga je slednji omenjal v svoji pritožbi zoper delo policistov. Dopušča možnost, da ga je pritožnik Boštjan Avsec zamenjal s sodelavcem Rokom Rezljem, kateri je imel dejansko z njim postopek. Je pa pred leti pritožnika Boštjana Avsca obravnaval, kot oškodovanca v kaznivem dejanju, zaradi česar si ga je slednji verjetno tudi zapomnil in ga zamenjal s policistom Rokom Rezljem.
Policist kriminalist Rok Rezelj je v razgovoru povedal, da je dne 21. 6. 2024 opravljal naloge policista kriminalista med 6.00 in 16.00 uro na Policijski postaji Novo mesto. Dežurni policist policijske postaje Novo mesto, Stojan Pevec ga je poklical in obvestil, da ima zanj v avli policijske postaje, stranko. Ob prihodu v avlo je opazil, da tam sedi občan, kateri se mu je predstavil kot Boštjan Avsec. V razgovoru ga je pozval da se izjavi glede namena njegovega prihoda.
Pritožnik Boštjan Avsec je v razgovoru povedal, da zahteva priporni nalog za direktorja Policijske uprave Novo mesto, Igorja Juršiča in v nadaljevanju, da bo to zahteval kasneje. Tega dne naj bi se na Policijski postaji Novo mesto zglasil zaradi izvajanja nasilja nad njim in sicer s strani Policije preko MK ULTRA. Nad njim naj bi se to nasilje vršilo že od njegovega 1. leta starosti. Nato je pritožnik Boštjan Avsec želel podati pritožbo zoper delo policije. Takrat je stopil do dežurnega policista po dodatne liste in pisalo ter se vrnil nazaj do pritožnika Boštjana Avsca. Pojasnil mu je, da lahko pritožbo poda v pisni obliki. Pritožnik Boštjan Avsec je rekel, da ima pritožbo že napisano oziroma natipkano na 900 straneh in sicer v angleškem jeziku. Med pogovorom mu je pritožnik rekel, da on ni pristojen ali na dovolj visokem položaju in naj mu pripelje nekoga na višjem položaju. Tedaj se je vstal in odšel po dežurnega policista Stojana Pevca. Slednji je prišel v avlo in pritožniku Boštjanu Avscu na miren način razložil postopek podaje pritožbe, pri tem pa ni bil aroganten, agresiven in ni povzdigoval glasu na pritožnika.
Pritožniku Boštjanu Avscu je predlagal, da pritožbo, ki jo že ima natipkano posreduje na elektronski naslov Policije ali posreduje pisno priporočeno. Boštjan Avsec je nato rekel, .da na Novomeško policijo ne bo podajal pritožbe, da ji ne zaupa in da novomeška policija deluje pod vplivom oziroma navodili MK ULTRA.
Dežurni policist Stojan Pevec je v razgovoru povedal da je dne 21. 6. 2024 med 07.00 in 19.00 uro opravljal naloge dežurnega policista na Policijski postaji Novo mesto. V avlo policijske postaje Novo mesto je prišel občan, kateri se je predstavil kot Boštjan Avsec, pokazal mu je tudi
4 of 7
________________________________________________
osebni dokument. Med pogovorom je rekel, da želi podati prijavo zoper celotno policijsko postajo Novo mesto in direktorja policijske uprave Igorja Juršiča, katerega je potrebno odstranit. Omenjal je tudi, da se zoper njega že od rojstva izvaja MK ultra. Sam ni vedel niti, kaj to pomeni. Glede na samo prijavo Boštjana Avsca, je hotel ugotoviti, kaj točno hoče. Ker je hotel točno pristojno osebo, da bi njemu podal prijavo je poklical policista kriminalista Roka Rezlja.
Policist Rok Rezelj je z pritožnikom Boštjanom Avscem v avli opravil razgovor. Nato je prišel noter do njega, kaj točno mu je policist Rok Rezelj govoril ne več povedati. Stopil je v avlo, pri tem si je odprl vrata, katera je proti zaprtju zavaroval z zatičem, ki vedno pri aktivaciji le tega glasno poči. Ta pok je očitno zmotil pritožnika, saj je takoj začel z očitki, zakaj je agresiven. Stopil je do njega in ga z normalno komunikacijo vprašal, kaj želi, do njega ni bil nespoštljiv. Saj se ni vedelo, kaj bi pritožnik Boštjan Avsec rad podal ali kazensko ovadbo ali pritožbo ali kakšno drugo prijavo, saj niso vedeli kaj želi. Pritožnik Boštjan Avsec je ves čas govoril, da kaj je agresiven, on in policist Rezelj pa sta hotela od njega izvedeti kaj točno želi. Pojasnjeno mu je bilo, da lahko pride v dopoldanskem času, ko bo na postaji kdo od vodstva, v koliko smatra, da on in policist Rok Rezelj nista dovolj kompatibilna, da bi od njega sprejela prijavo ali pa jo pošlje po pošti.
Vmes ga je opozoril, da v prostorih policijske postaje Novo mesto ne sme snemati postoka, pokazal mu je tudi kje to piše. Boštjan Avsec je tedaj vzel ven mobilni telefon iz žepa.
Ob svojem odhodu je Boštjan Avsec rekel, da bo pritožbo podal naknadno.
4. Izjava pritožnika
V zadevi povem, da mi je bil predstavljen zapisnik, prav tako izvedene naloge glede moje pritožbe.
Da jaz ne vem kaj je MK ULTRA, da tega nisem znal razložiti kaj to je, je bizarno. Agresija je bila narejena po scenariju MK ULTRA ko sem odšel domov in opisal dogodek na svoji spletni strani >>ausertimes<<. V glavnem postopek MK Ultra sem opisal g. policistu Rezlju. Goljufijo, ki sem jo podal zoper računalnik je bilo ugotovljeno kar nekaj modifikacij. Jaz ne obiskujem policijske postaje kar tako brez veze. Gospod je prišel v avlo po postopku MK ULTRE. Sploh ni šlo da bi jaz višjega policista ampak zaradi tega, ker mi je svetoval da podam pritožbo, ki jo imam na 1000 straneh. Glede na tisto, kar sem predhodno omenil, glede na dejstva, ki sem jih objavljal na svoji spletni strani se mi je zdelo nesprejemljivo. Zaradi tega sem prišel do ugotovitev, da bi bil morda drug policist, ki bi bil bolj kvalificiran za takšne vrste postoka, nisem pa njega hotel dati v pozicijo »niko in ništa«. Do tega je prišlo, ker je vztrajal naj grem domov in podam pritožbo in zaradi tega, ker ni razložil, da nihče od nadrejenih ni v službi. Rok Rezelj je pod vplivom MK ULTRA insistiral da napiše pritožbo. S tem sem čutil, da me želi odsloviti s policijske postaje.
Mene je samo zanimalo, kako priti do nekoga, ki bo postopek z moje strani sprejel in bo policija vso mojo raziskavo na spletni strani tudi raziskala.
Predhodno sem že omenil, da je bila celotna zadeva po scenariju MK ULTRA, do komunikacije med policistko in policistom ni prišlo. Med policistko in policistoma, ki sta zapustila avlo in odšla ven iz policijske postaje, je bilo zelo veliko interakcije in tudi z mano preko postopka MK ULTRA.
Najpomembnejša stvar tega postopa je ko ti lahko vidiš eno stvar popolnoma drugače če se to izvaja nad tabo podzavestno in ponavljajoče, kar je tudi pranje možganov z namenom
5 of 7
________________________________________________
pridobitve dokazov s katerimi je policija želela dokazovati moje umske nesposobnosti v realnem življenju.
Če sem bil prijazen s sodelavcem ne razumem, da drug policist pride do mene na aroganten način in se tam zraven mene parkira, zato ne razumem te arogantnosti policista.
Ker sta oba policista bila veliko bolj telesno razvita višinsko in po kilogramih, zaradi svojega sodelovanja s policistom Rezljem in zaradi večkratnega vstopa Rezlja v prostore Pevca nisem čutil potrebe po agresivnem vstopu policista Pevca v avlo s tem, ki sploh ni bil seznanjen zakaj sem sploh tistega dne bil na policijski postaji. V avli PP so mi na podlagi ponavljajočega scenarija MK ULTRA zagotavljali vstope g. Rezlja v notranjost PP, kot njegovo sodelovanje, soočanje s sodelavci od strani katerih bi dobival na nadaljnja navodila - eksplicitno g. Pevca. Glede na to da se je tudi večkratno srečeval med mojim srečanjem z g. Rezljem. Po agresivnem vstopu v avlo, tukaj mislim na vrata, katera so »šklocnila«< in na njegovo hojo in agresivno soočenje z očmi je ta postopek ponovil. Večkratno je bila njegova agresivnost izražena proti meni, kot, da sem tistega dne prišel na PP izzivat policiste k konfliktu. Med tem ko je pol. Rezelj ostal na nasprotni strani mize. Edini, ki je še sedel sem bil jaz, od katerega se je zahtevalo, da se vstane in se sooči s ponovnim obraznim izzivanjem oči g. Pevca po scenariju MK ULTRE. Približal se mi je z leve strani na razdaljo, katero je ponavljal po scenariju MK ULTRA.
Za mene je to pika na i, druge stvari pa sem vam že tako ali tako opisal v primarnem pritožbenem postopku in na svoji spletni strani.
G. Pevec in g. Rezelj sta izvršila množico kaznivih dejanj med postopkom MK ULTRA, katera sta posegala tudi z grožnjo s smrtjo, ki sta zadevala g. Pevca. G. Pevec je kakor g. Štefanič služil direktorju Ogulinu, ostalim direktorjem NM Policije v smislu nadzora samega postoka MK ULTRA, ki ni posegal samo v moje življenje ampak tudi v življenje moje družine. S tem, da je g. Pevec fizično izvajal naloge direktorja Policije Ogulina, g. Štefanič pa se je ob takšnih postopkih (ne vseh) osebno seznanjal z njimi.
Po omenjanju g. Napečnika do roka pritožbe 45 dni glede bivšega direktorja Ogulina, ki je služil bivšim direktorjem, kot desna roka podaljšek bivše Jugoslovanske države, ki je začela genocid preko postopka MK ULTRA pred mojim 1 letom starosti, I. 1972, sam takšnega zakonika, roka pritožbe 45 dni proti bivšim uslužbencem PP v Sloveniji ali uslužbencem RS ne morem priznati za legitimnega, še posebej ne morem priznati za legitimnega, ker se postopki MK ULTRA še vedno uresničujejo v vsakdanjem življenju zaradi česar sem se ustavil na PP NM dne 21. 6. 2024.
Zaradi tega sem zavrnil g. Napečnika, po njegovem vztrajanju na 45 dnevi pritožbeni rok, s tem da sem mu svetoval, da bom po potrebi prav tako izvedel kazenski postopek proti njemu za primer sem mu navedel g. Igorja Juršiča. PU Novo mesto je služil državi Sloveniji po njeni osamosvojitvi kot del vojaškega sodišča s katerim sem se srečeval preko PP NM že od svojega rojstva. Sodišče, ki kakor Stalin ni priznavalo pritožbenih mnenj svojih strank, ampak je namesto pomoči izvajalo eliminacije na način Jožefa Stalina.
Ne priznavam roka 45 dni za pritožbo v vezi predhodni predstavnikov PU NM in ostalih uslužbencev države Slovenije. Država Slovenija se ni pobrigala I. 1991, da bi se ta primer zaključil saj je imela druge interese v ozadju, med katerimi je ponovna vzpostavitev jugoslovanske države.
/
5. Izjava na obravnavi prisotnega policista
6. Zaključne ugotovitve vodje policijske enote oz. poročevalca
6 of 7
________________________________________________
Iz pregledane razpoložljive dokumentacije, ki se nanaša na obravnavani dogodek, vodja pomiritvenega postopka Andrej Štefanič, ugotavlja, da sta policista Stojan Pevec in Rok Rezelj, pri postopku s pritožnikom ravnala zakonito in skladno s predpisi, ki opredeljujejo uporabo policijskih pooblastil.
Glede pritožbenih razlogov pritožnika se je pooblaščenec vodje organizacijske enote opredelil v poglavju 3.
Pritožnik se tako torej strinja z ugotovitvami, predstavljenimi na pomiritvenem postopku in se strinja, da se postopek zoper Stojana Pevca in Roka Rezlja konča.
Obravnava je zaključena dne
25. 10. 2024 ob
11.10
uri.
PRITOŽNIK:
Boštjan Avsec
Sektor za pritožbe zoper Policijo Tomaž Napečnik
SLOVENIJA
REPUBLIKA CA
POL
POSTAJA
JSKA P
POLICIJSKA
POL
MINISTRS
OVO MESTO
GAON
MESTO
ZADEVE
SKA UPRAVA
ZA NOTRAN
Zapisnikar
Mojca Gosenca Krevs
(nythers
My tvers
VODJA ORGANIZACIJSKE ENOTE ALI POROČEVALEC
Andrej Štefanič
namestnik načelnika
policijski inšpektor specialist II
7 of 7
.png)
.png)
GET TO READ HER ARICLE BECAUSE THERE IS SOMETHING VERY VERY BAD HAPENING SOMEWHERE WITH SOMEONE - DOES SO TO DEMONSTRATE WORLD THAT SHE, HOWEVER, IS DOING HER JOB AND NOT DELIBERATELY FAILING ONE....CORRUPTION = 100% GOVERNMENT JOB WHEATHER THROUGH PRIVATE OR PUBLIC SECTORS MAIN CORRUPTION IS AT THE AGENCIES WHERE COMPLAINS ARE SUBMITTED TO AND NEVER RESOLVED AT SATISFACTION OF VICTIMS OF CRIME. RIGHT AT THE TOP AND IT DOESN'T GET ANY HIGHER THAN EUROPEAN COMMISSION
Anti-corruption
Corruption, commonly referred to as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain, is a multi-sector phenomenon, present both in the public and private sector, and in the political arena. While corruption can take the form of petty crime or complex high-level corruption, it can also hide behind favouritism and nepotism, conflicts of interest and revolving doors – where business meets politics.
I would like to focus on corruption, with all its faces. The face of foreign agents trying to influence our political system. The face of shady companies or foundations abusing public money. We must also eradicate corruption at home. That is why we will present measures to update our legislative framework for fighting corruption. It erodes trust in our institutions. So, we must fight back with the full force of the law.
Corruption is harmful to society. It constitutes a threat to security as it enables and drives organised crime, terrorism, and other forms of crimes, including money-laundering or drug trafficking. Corruption deepens inequalities, erodes citizens’ trust in public institutions, undermines good governance and social justice, and constitutes a serious threat to the rule of law, democracy, and fundamental rights. Corruption also has a negative impact on prosperity and economic growth by creating business uncertainty, lowering investment levels, hampering fair competition and reducing public finances. It also adversely affects government objectives that focus on
improving income disparity and environmental protection.
The European Union is one of the least corrupt regions in the world. However, none of the EU countries is fully free from corruption. Although its nature and scope may differ from one EU country to another, corruption harms the EU as a whole:
- Corruption is estimated to cost the European Union between EUR 179 billion and EUR 990 billion per year, amounting to up to 6% of its GDP.
- 70% of Europeans believe that corruption is widespread in their countries - an increase of 2 points compared to 2022 (2023 Corruption Eurobarometer Survey).
- 35% of EU businesses consider corruption to be a problem in doing business, (2023 Eurobarometer survey: Business’ attitudes towards corruption).
- 59% of EU business agree with the statement that bribery and the use of connections is often the easiest way to obtain certain public services, (2023 Eurobarometer survey: Business’ attitudes towards corruption).
On 3 May 2023, the Commission adopted anti-corruption package. This includes a proposal for a new Directive on combating corruption by criminal law. It aims to update and harmonise EU rules on definitions and penalties for corruption offences to ensure high standards against the full range of corruption crimes. It provides also for corruption prevention. Prevention helps to support a
.png)
culture of integrity, in which corruption and impunity are not tolerated.
The set of measures include new and strengthened rules criminalising corruption offences and harmonising penalties across the EU, as well as a dedicated Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP) sanctions regime to target serious acts of corruption worldwide. These new measures place a strong focus on prevention and creating a culture of integrity, in which corruption is not tolerated and at the same time, strengthen enforcement tools.
The Package includes a Joint Communication on the fight against Corruption, through which the Commission and the High Representative bring together existing work and develop new directions and new tools at both EU and Member State level, also feeding into a clear commitment to tackling corruption at the global level. An EU network against corruption, bringing together law enforcement, public authorities, practitioners, civil society and other stakeholders, will act as a catalyst for corruption prevention across the EU. One key task of the EU network will be to support the Commission to map common areas where corruption risks are high across the EU. The work of the EU network will feed into an EU anti-corruption strategy, to be developed in consultation with the European Parliament and the Council, to maximise the impact and coherence of EU actions.
DOWN MY BLOG/VIDEOS EVERYTHING BEGINNING 1996 - PRINCE CHARLES AND PRINCE ANDREW HANDED RUSSIAN SERGEY MIKHAILOVICH BRIN AFTER ONE WAS SELECTED BY PUTIN TO HEAD FUTURE GOOGLE, A LAWYER PAPERWORK WHICH GUARANTEED THEM THE ABILITY TO TAKE DOWN THROUGH THE THIRD PARTY AS EXPLAINED ANY INTERNET CONTENT FROM GOOGLE AT ANY TIME - THIS PAPERWORK WAS FURNISHED IN 1998 TO ALL SIDES INVOLVED AND SPECIALLY RUSSIAN ONE AS A PRECONDITION OF EXISTENCE OF GOOGLE.
SERGEY MIKHAILOVICH BRIN WAS HIRED TO HEAD/RUN GOOGLE BY BRITISH ROYALS INSIDE OF OUR KITCHEN IN 1994. SERGEY MIKHAILOVICH BRIN AND OTHER RUSSIANS OF WHICH ONE WAS BELORUSSIAN KGB VALERIO INSIDE OF OUR LIVING ROOM AREA IN 1998 BY BRITISH ROYALS ABOVE STATED TAKEDOWN DOCUMENT WHICH HE AND OTHER RUSSIANS HAD TO RATIFY - PUTIN AND OTHERS TOOK ONE TO MOSCOW WHERE THEY HAD LAWYERS EXAMINE ONE AS WAS AND IS A PIECE OF INTERNATIONAL INFRINGEMENT LAW. BRITISH ROYALS KNEW DUE TO EXISTENCE OF INTERNET THIS PAPERWORK WOULD PLAY A CRUCIAL ROLE IN TAKEDOWN OF MY BLOG/VIDEOS - INTERNET AS PRINCE CHARLES STATED WHEN INTERNET CAME TO EXISTENCE WAS A VERY VERY BAD THING - VERY BAD NEWS. THEN CORRECTED STATED ON IT COULD BE GOOD OR BED BACK IN 1988 BUT THAT IT WOULD DEPEND ON ME. BRITISH ROYALS WERE EXTREMELY UNHAPPY WITH INTERNET, PERHAPS WITH NOBODY MORE THAN QUEEN ELIZABETH. INTERNET MEANT FOR ROYALS SHOCK AND STRESS, WITH ANDREW AND CHARLES ONLY REMOTELY SHOWING QUEEN AND PHILLIP ABOUT WHAT WENT ON. EARLY BEGINNINGS OF INTERNET INVOLVED HEAVY PRESENCE OF CHARLES AND ANDREW MONITORING ONE AND TAKING CONTENT FROM INTERNET, BUT THEY FACED GROWING PUBLIC RESISTANCE OF CENSORSHIP AND EVENTUALLY HAD LOST THE ABILITY TO POLICE ONE TO DESIRED DEGREE IN 1998 EVEN POINTING FINGERS AT ME
(GOES TO SHOW DEGREE OF PARANOIA IN THE ROYAL FAMILY WHEN I HAD TO FACE IN MIAMI WITH DILEMMA OF OTHERS POSTING TO INTERNET I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH IT - I FIRST TIME POSTED VIDEO TO INTERNET IN 2010 AND PRACTICALLY DIDN'T PARTICIPATE ON INTERNET TILL THEN - I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE PC TO USE INTERNET TILL 2001) TO CONCENTRATE ON THE WORST SCENARIOS OF WHICH THE WORST ONE AS THEY CLAIMED ME DURING MK ULTRA IS/WILL BE MY CASE.
YOU ANIMALS AT EU AND USA DON'T HAVE RIGHT TO KILL PEOPLE AS DESCRIBED IN VIDEO. YOU ACTIVELY TORTURED AND EVEN RESERVED THE RIGHT TO MURDER THROUGH TORTURE. YOUR JOB WAS TO PREVENT NOT PARTNER WITH ENEMIES OF EU AGAINST ME TO EVEN DEPICT YOURSELF AFTER DESTROYING LIVES KILLING ME AND MY FAMILY MEMBERS AS SOLUTION. DUTERTE ALREADY NEGOTIATED EVERYTHING WITH MURDEROUS INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT AND EUROPEAN UNION APPARATCHIKS - ENJOYED IN OUR HOUSE TO MOLEST ME WITH OTHERS - TORMENT MEPROVEN THROUGH MY CASE. I CAN ONLY IMAGINE TRAUMA MY FATHER HAVE GONE THROUGH DUE TO AS I MENTIONED MEDICAL FILE DEDICATED TO FATHER WHICH
MY MK ULTRA COMPLAIN - CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY REPORTED - DOWNLOAD COMPLAINT AT https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OAKnwNZJRyhvwQgXX0oLOGTZrYYgABuz/view?usp=sharing
Can be also seen at https://ausertimes.blogspot.com/2024/11/complain-procedure-against-novo-mesto.html
No comments:
Post a Comment