Kravets is a Lawyer not of Ukraine. When Will the Security Service of Ukraine Deal with him?

Screenshot from host Moseychuk’s YouTube channel. The broadcast with Kravets gained over 185,000 views

Thus, the national TV channel and Moseychuk amplify what Kravets does with their brand. And they have been doing this for more than one year. Incidentally, at one time, there were a number of stories on the tsn.ua website that whitewashed Oleksandr Dubinsky. I remind you that he is accused of high treason.

Now in the parliament, they are trying to pass the government’s draft law (8371) to the second reading, which is supposed to help block the subversive activities of Moscow’s priests. The situation is indeed critical. In order for the issue to enter the session hall for the second reading, they have to collect wet signatures from MPs again under an appeal to the Speaker Ruslan Stefanchuk.

The battle against Moscow’s priests is being waged not only at the level of the legislative branch of government but also in the judiciary. And there are successes here. Thus, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court made an excellent decision, which confirmed that religious communities can move away from Moscow’s priests. This decision was criticized by lawyer Rostyslav Kravets.

In addition, he manipulatively linked the public initiative “Needle”, which systematically conducts an advocacy campaign in the parliament to ban the “FSB in cassocks”, with… defenders of the “Moscow church”.

Screenshot from Rostyslav Kravets’ Telegram channel

And he called the judges of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, who supported the well-written decision, “random people”.

Screenshot from Rostyslav Kravets’ Instagram profile

Perhaps this lawyer forgot the Rules of Attorney Ethics, according to which his use of social networks, internet forums, and other forms of communication on the internet must comply, in particular, with the principles of restraint and correctness, dignity, tolerance and forbearance, and maintaining public trust. The bar association’s qualification and disciplinary commission should remind him of the rules of communication. But they probably don’t have time for him, because, as “Needle” wrote, the Bar Council of Ukraine, to which the Higher Qualification and Disciplinary Commission of Advocacy is accountable, has been invariably headed for decades by a long-time “acquaintance” of Viktor Medvedchuk – Lidia Izovitova. She was noted, in particular, for effectively defending Kravets when he was a suspect in a criminal proceeding.

It is worth noting that this lawyer’s inconspicuous internet attacks on upstanding judges on behalf of the pro-Russian wing of the bar are quite systemic.

Let’s start with the fact that Kravets positions the Supreme Court in our state as the “Supreme Court (not of Ukraine)”.
The public initiative “Needle” has already written about how this lawyer devalued the initiative to raise funds for the Armed Forces by frontline judge Ivan Mishchenko, who has now returned to work at the Supreme Court.

Kravets is also not indifferent to another judge – Viktor Prorok. The latter, by the way, is one of those who actively advocated getting rid of the odious judge Bohdan Lvov, in whom “Skhemy” found a Russian passport. Kravets writes that NABU (National Anti-Corruption Bureau) has become interested in Prorok.

Screenshot from Kravets’ Telegram channel.

But the lawyer himself was interested in Prophet. He even directed inquiries to find out more supposedly about the ‘skipping’ and ‘lateness’ of two judges (Kravets was also interested in Judge Dmytro Hudyma, in whose proceedings, like in Prophet’s, there is also a case of a judge named Khrymli, represented by Kravets). This is despite the fact that the working day and week for judges in Ukraine are unregulated, something a person holding a certificate to practice law should know.

Excerpt from Kravets’ appeal to the Supreme Court

To an uninformed person, it may seem that there is public oversight of the judiciary. However, if a civil society organization conducts monitoring of any entity’s work, there should be a methodology for such monitoring that applies to all judges, lawmakers, or officials without exception. Not just those against whom Kravets has cases. Is the latter not doing a disservice to his own clients with such “PR” appeals? Kravets took on judges not by chance. He is a lawyer known for supporting the “Maidan judges” and Oleg Gryvkovsky, whose cases were heard by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court. However, those cases, as evidenced by court decisions, did not yield the desired results for this lawyer’s clients.

Kravets also appeared in “Vovk’s tapes.” According to them, his “services,” in particular, were used to file lawsuits with the now-defunct OASK, in which the head of this court, Pavlo Vovk, was interested. Later, the Higher Anti-Corruption Court annulled the suspicion, which the lawyer himself reported on social media (significantly, in Russian), but there is hardly any public reaction from NABU on this matter.

And here arises the question, why has Kravets’ activity now synchronized with the work of NABU?

When it came to inspections by the DBR of the public sector, which allegedly avoids mobilization, it became known that one of the inspections was initiated based on my appeal, which I actually did not write.

And this happened immediately after our civic initiative published the research results – a list of Telegram channels that are part of the “Kremlin network.” Kravets’ channel also featured prominently on it.