Пане , Шарий у вас також "ретро-град амнезія" ?
02/25/2003 | CACTUS, 5element, "Ukrainian Reports"
Dear Mr. Shary,
Since you represent Ukrainskaya Pravda (UP) in the United States, I would like to draw you attention to the article "Адвокат Мельниченка спростовує заяви Жира" published by UP today. I am puzzled. In the article, UP "rebuffs" Zhyr and his "friend", Shvets, by showing that Scott Horton is not associated with APCO. My question is: when Zhyr and/or Shvets said that Horton is associated with APCO?
In our interviews, we referred to "one of Melnichenko's attorneys". And the other attorney's name is Gregory Craig of Williams & Connelly. We intentionally did not disclose his name, since we strongly believe that the other people - not just Craig or anyone else - should not be tainted by the dirt and lies emanating from Kolya. The name of Craig and the fact that he worked for Kolya are known to UP. This is the lawyer UP proudly presented in the passed as the one who worked for Bill Clinton and later for Kolya. If UP "forgot" the name of Craig, they could contact Grigoriy Omelchenko, who in my presence had a meeting with Craig last summer together with Kolya to discuss Kolya's legal matters. Since than, I was in contact with Craig on the matters related to Kolya. I had a meeting with Horton in presence of two witnesses, when Horton indicated that he was unhappy that Craig, who is associated with APCO, also works for Kolya. Horton's opinion was that this fact taints Kolya's "noble" cause, since APCO works for Medvedchuk. It is possible that today, on February 25, 2003, Craig does not work for Kolya, but he definitely worked for his in the passed, since the early days of Kolya's life in the U.S. That is exactly what Zhyr and I have been indicating. I do not really understand the UP's position on this. If they "forgot" Craig's name and just play with the definitions of "is working" or "worked", it is at least unprofessional. If they understand all, yet publish this misinformation, it raises even more serious questions. It is clear that the continuation of this kind of "kitchen" debates only helps Kuchma and his associates. I am sick with it and I strongly believe that by producing further misinformation on this matter will only ruin UP's reputation. You have to realize that Kolya is drowning in the marshes of lies. Desperately trying to get out, he lies more. By doing that he is taking together with him all those, who had a misfortune to try helping him in the passed.
The article "Melnichenko's lawyer rebuffs Zhyr" is just the last example. How many more do you need? We are not going to raise this issue on the "Fifth Element", since we find the issue disgusting.
Best regards,
Yuri Shvets
Since you represent Ukrainskaya Pravda (UP) in the United States, I would like to draw you attention to the article "Адвокат Мельниченка спростовує заяви Жира" published by UP today. I am puzzled. In the article, UP "rebuffs" Zhyr and his "friend", Shvets, by showing that Scott Horton is not associated with APCO. My question is: when Zhyr and/or Shvets said that Horton is associated with APCO?
In our interviews, we referred to "one of Melnichenko's attorneys". And the other attorney's name is Gregory Craig of Williams & Connelly. We intentionally did not disclose his name, since we strongly believe that the other people - not just Craig or anyone else - should not be tainted by the dirt and lies emanating from Kolya. The name of Craig and the fact that he worked for Kolya are known to UP. This is the lawyer UP proudly presented in the passed as the one who worked for Bill Clinton and later for Kolya. If UP "forgot" the name of Craig, they could contact Grigoriy Omelchenko, who in my presence had a meeting with Craig last summer together with Kolya to discuss Kolya's legal matters. Since than, I was in contact with Craig on the matters related to Kolya. I had a meeting with Horton in presence of two witnesses, when Horton indicated that he was unhappy that Craig, who is associated with APCO, also works for Kolya. Horton's opinion was that this fact taints Kolya's "noble" cause, since APCO works for Medvedchuk. It is possible that today, on February 25, 2003, Craig does not work for Kolya, but he definitely worked for his in the passed, since the early days of Kolya's life in the U.S. That is exactly what Zhyr and I have been indicating. I do not really understand the UP's position on this. If they "forgot" Craig's name and just play with the definitions of "is working" or "worked", it is at least unprofessional. If they understand all, yet publish this misinformation, it raises even more serious questions. It is clear that the continuation of this kind of "kitchen" debates only helps Kuchma and his associates. I am sick with it and I strongly believe that by producing further misinformation on this matter will only ruin UP's reputation. You have to realize that Kolya is drowning in the marshes of lies. Desperately trying to get out, he lies more. By doing that he is taking together with him all those, who had a misfortune to try helping him in the passed.
The article "Melnichenko's lawyer rebuffs Zhyr" is just the last example. How many more do you need? We are not going to raise this issue on the "Fifth Element", since we find the issue disgusting.
Best regards,
Yuri Shvets
Відповіді
2003.02.25 | КП8416
А хіба Shary не місіс?
Чорт, про що ви, мужики, гризетеся? нічого не розумію. Якщо Мельниченко писав кучму, то чого записи у Швєца? А в Жира що? Чи писали москалі, маючи ще з союзних часів системи прослуховування всіх перших секретарів та вищих урядовців (та й просто визначних громадян) у республіках? Тоді яка роль: а)Мельниченка б) Швєца в) Жира) г) Степури? Хто у кого що вкрав? Поясніть одним - ну двома - абзацами, щоб я міг батькові-пенсіонеру переказати. Хто з вас більша падлюка, містери?PS. Про те, що найбільше гі..вно - ку-кучма, не розказуйте. Для цього є телевізор.
2003.02.26 | No name
Офуєть...
КП8416 пише:> Тоді яка роль: а)Мельниченка б) Швєца в) Жира) г) Степури? Хто у кого що вкрав?
А при чому тут пунке "г"?
Ви не вважаєте що це трохи занадто?
2003.02.26 | КП8416
Офуєть... Або що таке "Г"
Степура весь час виступає із такими понтами, ніби він більше за всих тямить у "чіпсовому скандалі", але що саме він тямить - не зрозуміло. Складається з його слів єдине враження - "я причетний, я знаю". А раз так, то цікаво - чи причетний і чи знає. І що знає.2003.02.26 | СACTUS
Re: А хіба Shary не місіс?
Я вже тривалий час ставлю аналогічні запитання! Микола, чому, якщо ти особисто "писав" Кучму, то як так сталось, що ти не володієш а ні тими записами ані пристроєм? Чому вони в руках Жира, Швеця?... (АСТ тут ні при чім). От і питайтесь в Миколи! Що це все значить? А те що Коля --ШОСТИЙ!!! Кожного дня нові контраверсійні заяви! Ми люде прості! Але коли косимо жито, то разом з бур"яном, і не лише майорівського чину.2003.02.26 | CACTUS
Re: А хіба Shary не місіс?
Дорога! NO NAME! Пункт "Г" тут ні прни чім! Лолю почерк! Треба чоловіка десь "пнристроїть"!