СЪДИЯТА, КОЙТО МЕ ОСЪДИ!

Overview

The speaker describes a Bulgarian court case in which—according to him—a judge (from Veliko Tarnovo) ruled against him despite evidence he claims to have presented. He frames the outcome as the judiciary aligning with people he calls “criminals,” whom he alleges beat and harass him. He also claims that his public allegations were treated as grounds for liability.

Claims About the Court’s Decision

• He cannot understand how the ruling was reached, saying he trusted the court but now believes the process was not legal—or was “nonsense.”
• He argues that the court effectively treated his public statements about being beaten as wrongdoing.

Media Silence and Government Inaction

The speaker alleges:

• Media outlets did not cover his situation, despite him informing many outlets and involving lawyers.
• The Justice Ministry responded vaguely, which he describes as “thanked us like a love letter.”

Alleged Conflict of Interest

He claims there was a connection between the judge and prosecutors:

• A judge involved in his case is said to be connected through family ties to a prosecutor handling the matter.
• He argues that this should have resulted in removal, but did not.

Multiple Lawsuits, “Seizures,” and Increasing Claims

He compares a series of lawsuits and alleged seizures:

• After he published videos claiming he was beaten, the alleged attackers filed defamation suits and allegedly obtained financial claims.
• He says he then faced additional liens/arrests and was repeatedly asked to pay increasing amounts, citing totals such as:
  • 118,000 leva
  • 240,000 leva
• He mentions damages around €1,000 and includes “€000” placeholders, which he attributes to subtitle errors.

Payment Proof and Alleged Unnecessary Collateral

He states that he:

• Already paid and provided supporting documentation, including:
  • payment documents
  • medical evidence
• Argues there was no legal need for further collateral/seizures, but the court still ordered additional payments.

Compensation Ordered Against the Speaker’s Alleged Abusers

He claims:

• The judge ordered compensation to the people he accuses of beating him.
• He interprets this as meaning the judge found that the harm to him was outweighed—or that his speech about being beaten was treated as wrongdoing.

“Punishment for Speaking” and Rights Concerns

He repeatedly argues the ruling functions as punishment for public allegations:

Judges are telling him to “keep quiet,” because speaking publicly leads to new penalties.

He frames this as a violation of his rights.

Threats of Public Exposure and Online Campaigns

He says he will respond by increasing public visibility:

• He intends to name the judge publicly.
• He talks about organizing social media campaigns to keep the judge’s name highly visible online.
• He mentions expanding his public outreach (including Patreon and social platforms such as TikTok/Facebook/YouTube).

Court Actions, Jurisdiction Transfers, and Institutional Blocking

He references additional court actions and transfers:

• He mentions Ivan Draganov Petkanov (stated as being from Pazardzhik District Court in the subtitles).
• He claims he can be moved or blocked across institutions as part of the system’s behavior.

Final Conclusion (Speaker’s Interpretation)

The speaker concludes that:

• Justice failed in his case
• The system operates arbitrarily
• He will continue fighting by publicizing the matter.

Presenters / Contributors

• Only the main speaker is clearly identified as narrating the account.
• Named individual mentioned:
  • Ivan Draganov Petkanov (from Pazardzhik District Court, as stated in the subtitles).