My Application – 12/17/2018

In the first two trials, October 9, 2018 and October 25, 2018, I was found not guilty. The findings were made, in part, due to the testimony of Alexander Velminskiy (A.I. Velminskiy) who testified on October 9th at trial.

The JUDGEMENT from October 25th states, in support of its findings, that: “According to the trial transcript of the 9th of October 2018, the witness Alexander Velminskiy confirmed that John William Martin III had been brought to Anadyr from Lavrentiya in the very beginning of August 2018, placed in the hospital, Chukotka County Hospital, where he has been living until the present. Since the moment he has been brought to Anadyr, ordered so by the authorities, A.I. Velminskiy has been supervising and monitoring John William Martin III, he has been accompanying him on his walks along Anadyr, the periodicity and duration of which have been determined by the Border Governance. At all other times, the above-mentioned citizen spends in the infectious disease ward of the Chukotka Country Hospital, the doors of which are locked (including daytime).”

In the APPEAL from S.A. Ponomareva, Chief of the Migration Branch, she states that: “-the court’s conclusion on the retention of a foreign citizen by the officers of the Border Service of the Federal Security Service of Russia (BS FSB) in a health care institution is untenable, since no actual detention of the citizen was executed. To provide rehabilitation after a long transition through Bering Strait by a small-sized boat, the foreign citizen had been placed in the County Hospital of Chukotka where he was provided with the following: food, accommodation, health monitoring funded through the federal budget to which the foreign citizen expressed his agreement. Arguments that were considered by the court during the proceedings have not been checked and not taken into account, the employees of the health care institution were not summoned in the court proceedings;” “-aimed at objectivity of the case examination of an administrative offense, the officers of the BS FSB of Russia were not summoned in the court hearing; the court’s conclusions were made solely based on explanations from one officer of the BS FSB of Russia, who was recruited to provide required assistance to the foreign citizen in moving around Anadyr, visiting cultural and leisure institutions, introducing local sightseeing given the lack of Russian language proficiency.”

In response to the appeal, RULING dated December 05, 2018, the case was sent back to trial ordering: “To terminate the proceedings in the case on the administrative offense due to the absence of formal components of the administrative offence, the judge of the Anadyr city court took into account the fact that John William Martin III had to stay (reside) at the address: Anadyr city, Lenin street 1, from 15.30 on October 22, 2018, because on August 1, 2018 at about 6.30 John William Martin III arrived at the coastline of the Cape Nunyamo of Saint Lawerence Bay water area of Chukotka district of the Chukotka Autonomous Region, i.e. he entered the territory of the Russian Federation as a result of emergency because of the absence of drinking water and the threat of life. Therefore, when he was sailing by boat from the United States to China, he entered the territory of the Russian Federation to save his life, and the further stay in the territory of the Russian Federation became the consequence of such entry and under necessity. The guilt of the person in committing the administrative offence is not determined (sheets of the case 58-60).” “In support of his conclusions, the judge referred to the explanations of the person who is the subject to the administrative proceedings, and the testimony of the witness, Velmiskiy A.I. who was examined at the court session on October 9, 2018 during the consideration of the case No. 5-111/2018 on the administrative offense under part 1.1 Art. 18.8 of the CRFAO against the US citizen John William Martin III.” “Taking into account the mentioned circumstance and that the objective side of the administrative offense in the actions of the foreign citizen exists, and that the foreign citizen has been informed about the content of the above-mentioned provisions of the law, so, he had been aware of the illegal nature of his actions or foreseen the possibility of existing of harmful consequences of his actions. To the judge in order to comply with the requirements of Art. 2.1. 24.1. 26.1 of the CRFAO and determine John William Martin III guilt in committing the offense under part 1.1 Art. 18.8 of the CRFAO, it was necessary to ascertain whether the foreign citizen had taken any measures during the long period of stay (residence) in the territory of the Russian Federation – from August 1 to October 24, 2018 – to comply with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation concerning the stay of a foreign citizen in the territory of the Russian Federation to receive documents, to get official legal status to his stay (residence) in the territory of the Russian Federation, whether he applied to the competent state bodies of the Russian Federation or to the competent authorities of the United States of America, whether there have been circumstances, objectively preventing John William Martin III from following the provisions of the legislation of the Russian Federation concerning his stay in the territory of the Russian Federation.”

A.I. Velminskiy was called to testify, by the Migration Department, at the December 7th trial. A.I. Velminskiy’s testimony shifted significantly, from that of October 9th, to align with the claims laid forth in the Migration department’s appeal. He now claimed that I was not controlled in my movements and the doors were only locked for my protection, not to confine me. I asked him some specific questions for which he should have confirmed certain facts that support my claim of being in forced confinement and being under controlled movement. He denied outright these claims putting himself in the position of making false statements that may have influenced the outcome of a legal process. I made the court aware of his false statements at that time. I also asked the court at the same time to be permitted to call witnesses who could testify specifically on points where A.I. Velminskiy had refused to speak truthfully. But the judge did not permit me, saying that it was too late an hour to call witnesses. In the RULING of December 07, 2018, the judge did not mention the factual dispute, only mentioning A.I. Velminskiy in one sentence: “After hearing John William Martin III, examining the witness Velminskiy A.I., studying the materials of the case, the court results in the following.”

REQUEST

I request a hearing, to settle the factual dispute between my testimony and the most recent testimony from A.I. Velminskiy. I request transcripts from the October 9th trial and from the December 7th trial to prepare my arguments. I request the opportunity to present witnesses and evidence in support of my claim. I request this matter to be settled before the case goes back to trial.

John William Martin III
Citizen of The U.S.A.