Crimean collaborators continue the show with the “water blockade claim” and on September 13, the criminal “arbitration court” in Simferopol “began consideration of the merits” of this fake “claim”. At the same time, the criminal “speaker” Vladimir Konstantinov, talking about the alleged “amount of damage caused to Crimea by Ukraine as part of the water blockade”, says that it “could amount to about a trillion rubles”. However, a little later, following the results of the “seeting”, the old swindler from “Consol” was “corrected” by declaring the amount of “two trillion”.
Most likely, it was “two trillion” that was passed down to the collaborators from their Kremlin puppet masters as the “final figure”; at the same time, the previous “announcements” of “additional damage” for “representatives of the health resort industry” and “industrial enterprises” were estimated by the occupiers at a “modest” “2.2 billion” and “1.3 billion”.
However, the collaborators have new “creative” “ideas worth a trillion”; they were going to “file a lawsuit on behalf of all Crimeans” due to the supposed “moral suffering of Crimean citizens during the water blockade”. Naturally, no one is going to ask the Crimean residents’ opinion on this issue, just as no one is going to ask them about their moral feelings from Fix and Konstantinov in the form of “authorities”. After such a “new word in the history of legal thought,” it is not surprising that Efim Fiks’s bipolar ranting about a “financial blockade claim” with “claims” against Ukraine regarding the blocking of Ukrainian treasury accounts for which it turns out that the criminal “Russian authorities of Crimea” were going to somehow receive budget money from Kyiv.
Let us add that most likely the Crimean collaborators decided to rename Simferopol to Strasbourg and “petitioned” before the “arbitration” to “include in the case a copy of the materials of the interstate complaint of the general prosecutor’s office of Russia to the ECHR regarding the blocking of the North Crimean Canal by the Ukrainian authorities”, which the European Court itself removed from consideration including due to groundlessness. Fix and Konstantinov also brought to the court “letters from the investigative committee” of the occupiers “about the initiation of a criminal case under the article “ecocide,” but they were “embarrassed” to talk about what the punitive forces actually “drew” in this case in the final version.
