Lord Justice Bean: Any truth on shocking actions/crimes of Putin's oligarchs is totally without merits

The recent story related to the Wikipedia page of 69-year-old judge of the UK Court of Appeal, Rt. Honorable Lord Justice Bean, is self-sufficient in itself and puts everything in its place.

In compliance with all Wikipedia rules, some bare facts (without anyone's value judgments) were recently added to his biography. These bare facts are as follows:

1. Lord Justice Bean ruled on one specific case in August this year - this is simply a fact.
2. The defendants in this case are the Russian company PhosAgro and its main owners - Russian oligarchs close to Putin and one of whom was subject to UK sanctions for this reason. These are also just bare facts.
3. The plaintiff is a person (me) who received refugee status in Europe (refugee from Russia) due to a conflict with these defendants. It is also just a fact.
4. Two criminal cases have been initiated in the UK and Latvia, in which the plaintiff is recognized as a victim. These criminal cases were initiated in connection with death threats (accompanied by demands for the plaintiff to drop the lawsuit), as well as in connection with recent information about the defendants' ordering the murder of the plaintiff in connection with this trial. These are also bare facts.
5. Lord Justice Bean wrote in his decision that the plaintiff’s words that he is a victim in the above-mentioned criminal cases - - are “totally without merits. He made this WITHOUT CALLING THESE CIRCUMSTANCES BY THEIR PROPER NAMES OR EVEN MENTIONING THEM.

Thus, the only piquant nuance is that Lord Justice Bean formulated his decision in such a super-concise way that it does not directly list those statements of the plaintiff about which Lord Justice Bean wrote that they “totally without merits". To understand what exactly is meant, it is necessary to read not only the decision of Lord Justice Bean, but also the submission of the plaintiff, which was the subject of consideration. To do this (to find both documents in the public domain and compare them) is absolutely impossible.

In my petition (in which I wrote that I consider the decision of Lord Justice Bean to be deliberately illegal and made due to corruption), I mentioned this nuance - that Lord Justice Bean was ashamed to directly list in his decision those circumstances that, in his opinion, are “totally without merits”.

In the updated version of Wikipedia, in contrast to the Lord Justice Bean's decision, the phrase-conclusion “totally without merits” and the list of circumstances that are recognized as “totally without merits” appeared in the same text. The text in this form is very painful to the eye and enters into a stupor, because a natural question arises - why? By the way, in Lord Justice Bean's decision there is no answer to the question "why" - but not just "no", ?"no" at all.

Therefore, when all these facts turned out to be listed in ONE text - on Lord Justice Bean's Wikipedia page - it caused such nervousness and was accompanied by attempts to delete this text, reaching a comical level.

I will give an example at the everyday level. The words "salty" and "chocolate" each separately are completely ordinary, but if they are put side by side (salty chocolate), they will cause amazement. That's how, in the updated version of Lord Justice Bean's page, the words appeared next to each other, that he did not want to combine in one text, since such a text would immediately speak for itself - it's a result of corruption and that's why chocolate has become salty.