21 May The questions that three SPAK prosecutors have failed to ask the U.S. Department of Justice for four years
On June 23, 2026, the deadline imposed by a U.S. court expires. This court order has requested from GSIS, for a period of two years, not to provide LSI with any information regarding the services and payments made between the two parties under the contract dated February 3, 2016, registered in both the United States and Albania, in full compliance with the anti-corruption laws of both countries.
This decision came as result of a request by the Ministry of Justice of Albania.
First, I wish to clarify that this decision has deliberately served only to prevent me from securing the evidence that exonerates me from the accusations, as well as from having the opportunity to verify the legality of the alleged evidence by the prosecution.
Therefore, in respect of the lawful contract dated February 3, 2016, between GSIS and LSI, and of the expressed willingness of the American authorities to provide all detailed clarifications that may be requested, we are assisting the three SPAK prosecutors with the questions they have failed to ask for four years and which they should submit to the U.S. Department of Justice regarding this matter:
1. Based on the termination clause of the Agreement, we request the original document terminating this Agreement, in order to determine precisely:
a) The date on which these contractual relations were legally terminated;
b) The specific person from LSI who signed this Agreement.
2. If this Agreement is proven to have been terminated, then, pursuant to the legal obligation, the entire original work product that GSIS delivered to LSI from the first day until the closing date of the Agreement must be provided.
3. Likewise, in this case, GSIS must provide all confidential information that it gave to LSI, as well as all confidential information it received from LSI.
This would help SPAK identify the responsible person within LSI who received information from GSIS, or the person who provided LSI’s confidential information to GSIS.
Because, as may be assumed, we may be dealing either with the same person or with two different persons who should be questioned by the prosecutors.
4. GSIS must be asked whether there was any transfer or subcontracting of this Agreement and, if so, who was the person from LSI who gave written consent, in accordance with the contract?
5. At the end of the full Agreement, the contract clearly states that: “This Agreement may be amended or modified from time to time only by written agreement of both Parties signed by their authorized representatives.”
Based on this clause of the Agreement, was there any amendment or modification of the Agreement? If so, it must be made urgently available to SPAK so that the person from LSI who signed it, as well as the person who authorized this amendment, can be interviewed.
6. Since SPAK suspects that the American citizen A.SH may have made unlawful payments on behalf of LSI, allegedly using proceeds derived from corruption in Albania, for the benefit of GSIS, please provide us with the written consent under the contract that may have been obtained from LSI in this case, and secondly, the specific authorization that LSI is presumed to have given to A.SH.
7. If the contract was not amended, then the original invoices that GSIS sent to LSI must be provided, so that the specific person who received them under the Agreement, can be questioned.
8. All original payments made by LSI to GSIS must be provided, so that the specific persons involved can once again be questioned.
There are many other questions as well, but these are the most basic ones that must be forwarded to the American authorities regarding the company GSIS, because only transparency can guarantee the legitimacy of the process.
If these questions are not addressed and this information is not obtained, then it is clear that the three SPAK prosecutors never had any interest in uncovering the truth, but only served to a political game, as was proven by the officially dismissed accusation on November 15, 2024, concerning the alleged one-million-dollar lobbying through the “McKeon Group” for a non-existent photo with President Trump — a notification that was deliberately concealed from us until after the elections of May 11, 2025.
