30 Jun Responses by President Mr. Ilir Meta before the court in the judicial session regarding the revocation or replacement of the personal security measure
1 – On page 3 II.
The defendant Ilir Metaj and the person under investigation Monika Kryemadhi, have committed the criminal offense of “ Passive corruption of high-ranking state officials and elected officials ”, after, based on the analysis of facts and evidence by/from ………….., they have established contacts with the administrator their , the person under investigation, Adrian Shatku .
ILIR METAJ: This conclusion of the indictment is a reflection of an assessment not only unprofessional and unsupported by any evidence or fact at least for Mr. Metaj, but also completely tendentious from all the submissions and deliberations made by the prosecutors.
There is no act or fact to prove that Mr. Metaj has appointed or trusted Mr. Adrian Shatku as his administrator.
Likewise , there is no act or fact that Mr. Meta was aware that A. Shatku was the administrator of his ex-wife and that they shared illegal or even legal benefits together.
2 – Page 3 last paragraph.
As a result of this activity and the abusive exercise of power, the parties have benefited from citizen A.SH and UNIFI, considerable benefits, including a percentage of the profit as well as the provision by A. Shatku several times with credit cards.
ILIR METAJ: This conclusion is completely tendentious as there is no evidence or indication that Mr. Metaj has been aware of the illegal or legal benefits of his ex-wife from A.Shatku.
The reference to the percentage distributions on Ms. Kryemadhi’s mobile phone that SPAK claims is up to Ms. Kryemadhi to clarify.
Even more tendentious is the prosecutors’ attempt to present Mr. Meta as a co-beneficiary or aware of the illegal cards that the indictment claims, which according to what herself has stated, are only in the name of Monika Kryemadhi, who according to SPAK, is also their beneficiary.
Mr. Meta not only was not aware of this illegal relationship, but after learning that, after the search of Ms. Kryemadhi’s mother’s apartment, there was such a card, but unused, according to Ms. Kryemadhi, he also decided on a legal divorce with her, assessing it as a serious breach of trust and of the law, by an experienced politician, but also detrimental to his political causes.
Mr. Metaj learned about the use of this card in San Marino, when the prosecution stated this fact in Court, during the first session, after his arrest.
As for the other two cards, he learned about them on the day the indictment was communicated to him as a defendant, on May 27.
In this way, the prosecution itself proves that Monika Kryemadhi is the only user of this card.
3 – On page 5
ILIR METAJ: Once again, we emphasize that the prosecution’s attempts to “prove” from the findings on Ms. Monika Kryemadhi’s mobile phone that the persons under investigation, Metaj-Kryemadhi, have benefited a percentage of the profit from the company UNIFI Holding Inc, from the interconnection agreement with Vodafone, are both unfounded and contradictory.
The charge: “This fact results from the communications that Monika has with Shatku where she addresses him with the expressions “we” “Dhori’s permit” and “mine””.
It is clear that if this conversation is true, by “we” she means herself with her cousin Adrian Shatku.
Just like the second part , if it is true, “mine” means her interests, and this does not prove at all either the involvement of Ilir Metaj in this alleged “percentage” relationship or his knowledge of such a relationship (as in the case of the cards).
4- On page 5.
The charge: “Adrian Shatku is the trusted person of Ilir Meta and Monika Kryemadhi and according to the statement of Fatime Kryemadhi, also their distant cousin”.
ILIR METAJ: This conclusion is also tendentious, since from the entire investigation it results that Adrian Shatku is a person close to Monika Kryemadhi as a native of Dibra and Ema Shatku (Çoku), a close friend of Monika.
For these reasons, he was a person known and respected by Ilir Meta, but never his confidant nor aware of any illegal or suspicious activity of his.
5 – Page 5
ILIR METAJ : To present this very “strong” connection between Ilir Meta and Adrian Shatku, the indictment reflects the episode according to electronic communications that (as in page 71, communication of the indictment and charges to the defendant ):
“On September 5, 2014, Monika informs Adrian that Ilir will go to Morocco on October 30-31, 2014 and tells him that “if you want to go and if you need a meeting with any minister – Ilir told me”. Adrian replies that he will go and that “…I will do the meeting with the PM….we also meet the ministers of energy and telecommunications”
ILIR METAJ: This episode shows not only that Monika informs Adrian about the movements of the Speaker of the Assembly, but also that Adrian was very powerful in Morocco to the extent that he undertook to arrange the meeting with the PM (Prime Minister) and other ministers.
Then why did Adrian need the help of the Speaker of the Albanian Parliament in Morocco, when was he so connected to the Prime Minister of Morocco?
As it is known, it was an official visit and organized according to the all protocol rules.
The inclusion of such episodes seeks to create a suspicious connection between Ilir Metaj and Adrian Shatku which does not exist under any circumstances.
6 – ILIR METAJ: The prosecutors absurdly use a statement by citizen Eriol Braimllari, who is the cousin of Endrit Braimllari, both involved in the lobbying case to refute the claim as per SPAK, that the defendant Ilir Metaj has no connection with Adrian Shatku.
ILIR METAJ: In response to the questions previously asked by the prosecution, I have made clear the circumstances of my acquaintance with Adrian Shatku, so this word game by the prosecutors is meaningless.
If I have not had any suspicious, illegal connection, this is not my fault, but the merit of my always responsible, legal and moral behavior.
Similarly , you can question citizen Eriol Braimllari if he has met at least once or at least 100 times with citizen Adrian Shatku in Tirana or even in Washington , even without the Speaker of the Parliament. The TIMS system can also help you with this.
7- ILIR METAJ: Regarding the differences resulting from the prosecution’s charges regarding LSI lobbying in the US, we emphasize that every action by Mr. Metaj and the LSI Presidency, until April 2017 when Mr. Metaj was replaced by Mr. Petrit Vasili as LSI Chairman, has been in full respect of Albanian and American laws.
Every agreement was approved by the LSI Presidency and a person was appointed to sign and follow its implementation according to the clauses agreed upon with the respective companies.
Mr. Metaj has never authorized nor had any knowledge that a person or company in Albania or the US has made undeclared, practically illegal payments in the interest of LSI.
Likewise , Mr. Metaj is surprised how American companies can accept such payments in violation of American laws and we are interested to know if any of them are being investigated by the US for this violation of American laws.
Furthermore, Mr. Metaj has informed you and proven, as in the case of the “McKeon Group”, for which a legal and declared payment of $15 thousand was made, that the intermediary, the Greek-American lawyer Fidetzis, had registered an agreement with FARA on behalf of the LSI without being authorized by the LSI and this was denounced by Mr. Metaj himself to the President of the “McKeon Group”, who notified also FARA.
Regarding the prosecutors’ claim about my close relations with Ms. Ema Çoku (Shatku), we are dealing with a deliberate speculation since they were purely courtesy relations and not at all close, moreover that she personally was not part of the leadership structures of the Freedom Party (LSI), but had social and family ties with Ms. Kryemadhi.
As for the other influences of Ilir Metaj in episodes that result, according to SPAK, from Ms. Monika Kryemadhi or other’s persons telephone communications, they are imaginary, speculative and untrue.
Likewise, we assess that SPAK continues to apply the standard of investigation to Mr. Metaj at the same level as the standard of his arrest (abduction) beyond any objectivity and in serious violation of the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights.
We appreciate the permission that SPAK granted Ms. Monika Kryemadhi in January of this year to visit the USA where Mr. Adrian Shatku and representatives of the lobbying companies involved in this process were also present, but we fail to understand the insistence on keeping Mr. Metaj in custody even after the investigations have been started for a long time and have been postponed several times.
Therefore, we hope that the Court will put this investigation process on the tracks of the rule of law, especially since Mr. Meta is the President of the second opposition force in the country and there is no risk of his departure, as he has been under investigation for 6 years and on the day of his arrest (kidnapping) he was returning from Kosovo.