HE GAVE CARDER FREEDOM: The best lawyer in the USA - Igor Litvak

[Cloned Boy]

KICKED OFF CARDER FROM THE USA.

Sergei Pavlovich talked to Igor Litvak, a well-known lawyer in the USA.

How Igor managed to "save" Sergei from a huge term in the States under an article for which he had already served 10 years in Belarus, how long it all lasted, what difficulties there were along the way, why the American prosecutor read the book "How I Stole a Million?" and watched the "People PRO" channel - this and much more in the issue.

Enjoy reading!

Contents:

• Introduction
• How did it all start?
• About Sergey's case
• How the lawyer wanted to close Sergei's case
• How I got documents about Sergei's imprisonment
• How cases are described in Belarus
• How a lawyer searched for a Secret Service agent
• How a lawyer persuaded the prosecutor to close the case
• About the Trump case
• What was in Sergey's case
• What's happening with Sergei's case now?
• What else does Igor do?
• Results

Introduction
Pavlovich:
Igor, tell us who you are. Who are you?

Lawyer:
My name is Igor Litvak, I am a criminal lawyer in the USA.

Pavlovich:
By the way, you may have seen in several of our episodes, BadB and I filmed with Igor, we did a teleconference there. It is very interesting, look at how justice is organized in the USA, criminal law there with BadB's comments, if you still remember him.

Lawyer:
Yes, and I practice criminal law. One of the areas that I practice is cybercrime. Over the past 10 years, I have represented a lot of people who are accused of this in America, who were extradited, with great success. And now you can tell us...

Pavlovich:
They with great success or you with great success?

Lawyer:
The cases were completed with great success. One of these successes is your case, which we will talk about today.
And as everyone probably already understood, since you are not in Russia, we were able to close your case. It took us almost 3 years. This August would have been 3 years. It was a very long story, how we did it all. It was a coincidence of many different factors. We were very lucky in a sense.
Also, the strategy and tactics that I used led to the fact that your case in America is closed, and now you are free, you can travel and live wherever you want.

Pavlovich:
And where is it interesting? Before coming here, I thought that I would be interested in living in Dubai. Now, when I get up at 10 in the morning, go to the hotel, and it's 40 outside, I am no longer interested in it at all. And, by the way, the guys in Dubai spend about $ 300-400 a day on beer, parking, and a hotel. Well, $ 300-400 a day, if you suddenly didn't know.

How did it all start?
Lawyer:
How did it all start? I am on good terms with BadB -, Vlad Khorokhorin. He had a website, if you remember, called Cybersec.

Pavlovich:
Cybersec, yes.

Lawyer:
In 2020, I kind of collaborated with him on this site. We wrote different articles for him there. I did advertising for him. And I remember, it was the peak of the pandemic. I think it was July or August 2020.
I once talked to BadB Khorokhorin, and he says to me, have you ever heard of this person Sergei Pavlovich? I told him, no, I've never heard of him. And he tells me, you know, he has a very interesting channel, he discusses various interesting topics there, including cybercrime and other interesting topics. You need to kind of watch this channel. And he also tells me, you know, by the way, he also has some problems with America, and that's why he can't leave Russia.
Okay, so they told me this, I was like, well, problems-problems, what can I do? A couple of weeks passed, I finally got around to it, I went to your channel on YouTube. And at that time, I think you had something like 250-275 thousand subscribers.
The most interesting thing is that when I say, we were lucky in a sense, when I went to your channel.
The first thing I did, I don’t know why, because I’ve never done this on any other channels, the first thing I did, I went to the first two videos that you posted.

Pavlovich:
I thought I clicked the subscribe button.

Lawyer:
No-no-no.

Pavlovich:
By the way, click it, if you haven’t clicked it yet.

Lawyer:
The first thing I did, I don’t know why, I just felt like doing it. You already had, in my opinion, hundreds of videos like this, and I just went to the first video that you posted on this channel. In this video, you tell your story. You tell your story, how you had a criminal case in the 2000s, how you were arrested in Belarus, that you received a long sentence, and that they want to extradite you to the United States on the same charges.
And it really affected me, seriously, when I watched your video, I couldn’t understand how it was possible that a person who had already served 10 years, had already been punished for the things he did, how they could bring him to America for the same thing. I couldn’t understand it. What did I do? I started doing legal research. I didn’t even talk to you, I didn’t even tell BadB about it. I just started doing legal research.
I wanted to understand how we could close this case. I found this topic. And at that moment, by the way, I started googling you in American courts, and I found your case in America. Your case was in San Diego. In California, in San Diego, in a federal court. By the way, this is also a coincidence, because at the same time I already had a case with another person in the same court, also a Russian, and he had a criminal case in the same court.
And I already had experience with this prosecutor's office and with these courts in San Diego.

Pavlovich:
But San Diego is a bit far from you. Another coast, so to speak.

Lawyer:
I work all over America. I have cases in Florida, in DC, in Washington, in California, anywhere. And this is not a problem. This is a federal court, this is one system. The point is that I already had experience with this prosecutor's office and with this judicial system specifically in San Diego. And I found this topic. There is such a concept, in English it is called a "stale complaint".
Because when I found your case in this San Diego court, everything that was hanging in the court was just a compliment. What is a compliment? In America, how do criminal cases begin? In two ways. Or an agent, a federal agent files a compliment, it's just like a complaint, where he writes articles that you, like... You are accused, that you violated, plus like the facts that you did to violate these articles.

Pavlovich:
Well, like a suspicion, right?

Lawyer:
It's like the beginning of a criminal criminal case. It's a complaint. But on the basis of this complaint, you can't, like, bring the case to a jury. In order to bring the case to a jury, the prosecutor's office must make an indit. This is a very unique system in America, because it works like that in most countries. The prosecutor simply makes a statement in court, and a criminal case begins. In America, it's a little different. In America, if it's a serious crime, that is, a serious crime, any crime where the maximum punishment is more than a year.
It's serious. It can go as far as the death penalty. A minor crime is where the maximum punishment is a year. A serious crime is a year, but more than a year is up to the death penalty.

Pavlovich:
In Belarus, for example, a less serious crime is up to six. A serious crime is up to twelve. Well, and an especially serious crime is over twelve.

About Sergei's case
Advokat:
And when I found your case in San Diego, everything we saw and everything that is still there is just a compliment. That is, there was no indentured servitude. What is indentured servitude? How does the system work in America? If the prosecutor's office accuses you of a serious crime, before bringing the case to a jury, they must show it, the evidence they have, to the people, ordinary people off the street.
A panel of people is assembled, a group of people from 16 to 23. They come to court. There is not even a judge there, just a prosecutor. And the prosecutor's office shows the preliminary evidence that they have against the defendant. And these people vote. Who are these? Ordinary people? Ordinary people from the street. They vote for indictment or against indictment. And this is one of the defenses that the American judicial system has, because if there is a serious crime, the prosecutor cannot just come to court and start a criminal case.
They must first show it to ordinary people and say, here is what we have, here is our evidence, we believe that it is more than 50% likely that a crime was committed, do you agree with us or not? And these people vote.

Pavlovich:
And how many people, you say, from 17?

Lawyer:
From 16 to 23. Well, quite a lot. Yes. And that means if the majority voted that yes, they believe that there is a greater than 50% probability that a crime was committed, they vote, and then an indictment is issued. And when the prosecutor's office receives an indictment, they can already take the case to a jury trial. What was unique in your case? That in your case there was only a complaint. That is, there was no indictment.
Do you understand? And when I do legal research, when I tried to understand how to close your case, I did it based on the fact that there is no indictment. And I made a calculation based on the fact that there is a complaint. This is a slightly different standard, do you understand? And I found a topic that there is such a legal jureprudence, such a topic is called stale compliance. What does this mean? Stale compliance is not a fresh complaint.
That is, what is the point? How does it usually work? When a case starts with a complement, After a person is arrested, the prosecutor has 30 days to make an inditment. If the prosecutor does not make an inditment within 30 days after the person is arrested, the case is closed. Terminated? Terminated, yes. Have you ever had such cases? Yes, of course. Sometimes the prosecutor goes to court.
The grand jury comes, this is the grand jury. They show this evidence to the jury. The jury says, no, we do not think there was a crime here. And they vote against the inditment. In your case, there was no inditment. But there is such a topic in American jurisprudence, it is called a stale complement. So what does this mean? It means that after the prosecutor files a complement in court, they have a certain time when they must make an inditment.
When a person is arrested, they have 30 days. But if a person is not arrested, they have much more. This compliance can hang, in principle, for years. But there is a special law that says that they can hang forever.
Why? Because if they file a compliance in court, and they never do an indite, they never call grand juros to court, so the case can hang, say, 10-20 years, you do not know about it, or, let's say, you do not fight this case, facts are forgotten, witnesses forget, you lose evidence. And you understand, and then you cannot defend yourself.

Pavlovich:
Well, like in my case, I am accused, it was already 2004, well, 19 years have passed, I really do not remember, I do not even remember many nicknames. BadB, I only remember you, a couple of others. Hello, Olya.

Lawyer:
So that's the whole point, that is, what is the logic?

How the lawyer wanted to close Sergey's case
Lawyer:
Complaint can't hang in court forever until inditment, because if it hangs there forever, eventually it will get to the point where you won't be able to defend yourself. You see, you've lost the evidence, you've forgotten the facts.

Pavlovich:
The witnesses have died, let's say, in your defense.

Lawyer:
Yeah, the witnesses died, you know? So how are you supposed to defend yourself 20 years after they started the case? It's not fair. I call Batby, I tell him, listen, I found a way to fight this case off.
Please talk to Seryozha and tell him to contact me, Because I think I found a way to close this case. And I remember we contacted each other at the end of '20. And I kind of explained this system to you, all this. You told me, Igor, work. Forward. Work, brothers. Yeah, and you told me, forward.
I had to find an approach to the prosecutor. And I, to be honest, I understood that the little drawing I made, And if we went to the judge with these arguments, it was unclear. We could... It was 50-50. We could win, we could lose. So my initial strategy was not to use legal arguments so that the prosecutor's office or the judge would close the trial.
Closed, as if your case was annulled. My strategy is a little different. I left these legal arguments for plan B. But for plan A, I had a different strategy. I wanted to show the prosecutor the following. You served 10 years. You served these 10 years for the same crimes in Belarus that you committed against America.

Pavlovich:
So I only served for them. In the indictment, I only have American cards. I did not have Belarusian citizens, Belarusian cards. None of this was there at all.

Lawyer:
And the most interesting thing is that agents participated in your Belarus. American agents. They participated in your criminal case in Belarus. They sent evidence. Yes. They sent evidence. My strategy was, first, before we went to court, to file some kind of petitions so that the judge himself would close it. My strategy was, like, go up to the prosecutor, get to know him, show him who you are, what you have become, that you are a journalist, that you have long since moved on from these crimes, that you do not do this.
And most importantly, that you have already been punished for what you have already done. That was my strategy, plan A. I made the first move of this strategy in May of 21. Two years ago. In May of 21, I had a verdict. I bought your book on Amazon, how to steal a million.
Here it is, by the way, if you do not see it.

Pavlovich:
Only on Amazon it has a different cover, in a different language.

Lawyer:
I bought your book on Amazon, in English, how to steal a million. How did I steal a million dollars? After that man's verdict, I immediately came out here, and there the prosecutor's office is across the street from the federal court. Convenient? I go with this book to the prosecutor who is handling your case.

Pavlovich:
But he was not handling the case, right?

Lawyer:
No, it was a female prosecutor, and your case was handled by a prosecutor. His name is Orlando Guterres. A Mexican, I guess. From Latin America, I think. Well, yes, from Latin America. I leave after the verdict with this book, and go to the prosecutor's office. And what was my idea? I wanted to give the prosecutor, this Arland, your book.
I wrote on the cover, on the first page, like, this is a book by Igor Litvak about Sergei Pavlovich, like, enjoy, well, like, enjoy. And I came to the prosecutor's office, which means the prosecutor was not there that day. He went somewhere, I had to... I kind of agreed with him in advance that I would come to you with the book, but he disappeared somewhere, and he was not there that day. And that's why I go to the woman, well, the prosecutor, who was handling the case that I just finished. And I say to her, here you go, here...

Pavlovich:
Did it end well for your defense?

Lawyer:
Very, very well, actually. One of the most successful cases. The guy, he spent 15 years in there, he ended up serving 2 years. And I give your book to this prosecutor who was handling the case that I just finished. I say, please give this book to Orlando, I want him to read it. She says, yes, yes, of course, no problem, I'll do everything. A couple of days pass, how many years ago now, I think, he sends me an email.
Like, I received your book, and there's a photo in it, I'll send it to you later, there's a photo in it where I wrote to him, you know, on the first page, like, Can you show it later, where I wrote to him from Igor Litvak about Sergei Pavlovich, please, read it. He writes to me, says, yes, I read the book, I will read it. I received the book, I will read it, okay. I was pestering him, a month passes, well, have you read the book? I will, I will.
Well, have you read the book? I will, I will. In the end, he says to me, okay, I read the book. I think two or three months passed. And he says to me, listen, listen, it's a cool book, I really liked it. And that's how our negotiations began. The fact that he read your book, it kind of gave me the opportunity... To get closer. Yes, yes, to get closer. And to give him the opportunity to understand who you are.
I was writing to him at the same time, look, he has a YouTube channel. He's a journalist. Well, the channel is in Russian anyway. Yes, but I told him, he's a journalist. He left prison a long time ago. He's not in cyber at all. And this gave me the opportunity to get closer to him and negotiate, and that's where the negotiations began, I tell him Orlando, that means I can file this petition in court, go to court, it's called motion, that means file a petition in
court and ask the judge himself to close this case but I don't want to do this I want to resolve this issue with you in a good way he tells me I think that if you go to court you will lose this This is my opinion. He says, do what you want, it's your decision. But he says, my opinion is, if you go to court and kind of fight the judge, you will most likely lose. He says, I can't tell you this 100%, but most likely you will lose.
But, he tells me, if you can prove to me and convince me that, firstly, ah, he has already actually served 10 years in prison, Because he says, a book is a book, but I need some documents. I can't just do this based on a book.

Pavlovich:
Well, a legal basis.

How I received documents about Sergei's imprisonment
Lawyer:
Yes, yes. He tells me, show me, prove to me that he has actually already served 10 years. I want to see it. And if you remember, it was during that period that I told you, get me a court document from Belarus.

Pavlovich:
Well, and my mother went, made a power of attorney to Moscow, she went to Belarus, took copies of the sentences. It is quite difficult to obtain, well, in general, we somehow got them and I sent them to Igor accordingly.

Lawyer:
Yes, and it took a very long time, I remember we waited, I think, nine months. And they translated something into English. Yes, firstly, there are a lot of documents, a lot of pages, it took a lot of months for you to receive it, then you sent it to me, then it was translated into English and then I had to sort of look through it all, read what was written there. And that was the key moment for us.
Because, I don’t know, in America it works completely differently, but in the verdict, in Belarusian court documents, in the verdict, everything was written there. What evidence there was, according to what codes. Because it doesn’t work that way in America. In America, they just tell you, verdict, that’s it, goodbye. That is, there is no clarifying data, no explanation?

Pavlovich:
No, no, no.

How are cases described in Belarus?
Advocate:
When you go to the verdict, they just tell you, you got a deal or you lost the jury trial. Both sides make short speeches. One side asks for one thing, the other side asks for something else. And the judge may say a short speech for three minutes or a minute and the verdict. It works completely differently in Belarus. In Belarus, the whole case is described at the verdict from beginning to end.
What evidence there was, on what grounds they found him guilty, what investigations there were, what cards there were.

Pavlovich:
But they take most of it, copy it from the indictment. That is, the judge doesn’t write it all himself, of course, and judges never write sentences here. That is, the assistant writes the sentence, the secretary generally writes it, and the judge simply signs it and that’s it.

Lawyer:
And we were lucky in that, too, on the one hand, because in that sentence it was an official document of the Belarusian court. There were seals, signatures, that is, everything was sort of official. And in that sentence it was simply written in black and white that you were sitting for crimes that were committed against America. Yes. It even describes that the names of the agents are given.
Ryan Knizly. Yes, Ryan Knizly, and what kind of cards they were, that they were American cards, there they were credit cards and everything else. Through Manhattan Bank, if you remember. And when I saw that, I was just like, listen, this is exactly what we need. Because this is exactly what the prosecutor was looking for. We translate it all, and I send it all to this Orlando. And how old is he?
I don’t know his age exactly. I would say 50-something. By the way, one of the most adequate... We were lucky with him in a sense. Because he was probably one of the most adequate prosecutors, a normal, actually normal person that I have ever met. I am sure that if I had gone to any other prosecutor in 99.5% of cases, we would have simply been given the three letters.
But he turned out to be adequate. He was kind of ready to work with us. He was kind of ready to listen to me for some reason. And is a prosecutor in the US a very serious position? Yes, they are very, yes. Influential? Yes-yes-yes. It is a very influential position. A lot, like, power. I must understand that when a prosecutor, according to statistics, starts a case in court, 98% of the time it ends in a conviction.
This is a very influential figure. They control the FBI, you could say, the secret service. That is, they work with the prosecutor's office. In our country, they say that people in suits tell people with guns what to do. And the prosecutor is people in suits, and the agent is people with guns. So, yes, he is a very influential figure. But Orlando turned out to be just an adequate, good person.
He didn’t tell us to go to hell, he just says “okay, I’ll listen to you, I want to see, I want to understand, I want to work with you and let’s see what we can do.” And when we translated your Belarusian documents here, there were a lot of pages, you know?

Pavlovich:
There were probably about 80 pages in total, and there were 3 sentences. In short, 120-150 pages in total.

Lawyer:
Yeah, and look, most prosecutors wouldn't even read it, you know, they'd say, forget about this case, whatever you want in court, I don't care. He kind of looked at it, he kind of looked through the documents, there were a lot of pages, it probably took him hours, you know. I tell him, well, look, the man served 10 years for what he already served, for what he did against America.
And in American jurisprudence there is such a concept, it's called double jappery. Double jappery, you know, has many different, you know, concepts. One of the concepts is when a person was tried, found not guilty, and then new evidence is found in the verdict, he can't be tried a second time. Let's say, this was a very famous example in America in the nineties. One man, a monster, killed a woman in her home.
He tortured her, tormented her, killed her, then buried her in his yard. He was arrested, there was a jury trial, and he was found not guilty at the jury trial. So, not guilty. The case was closed, he is innocent, that's it, the case is closed. Six months pass, the house he killed, he sold this woman to other people. So, the new owner of this house moves into the house, a couple of months pass, and they find, they were doing repairs there, and they accidentally find a film in the floor, that is, a photo film, a video film, where this man is filming himself killing this girl.
According to the principles of double jeppery, despite the fact that there is 100% evidence that he is guilty, he could not be tried a second time. That is, the killer is free.

Pavlovich:
But in our country they would try based on newly discovered circumstances.

Lawyer:
In America, if there is already a verdict of not guilty, that's it. If new evidence comes out later that you are guilty, you cannot be tried a second time. This is one principle of double jappery. The second principle of double jappery is that if a person has already been punished for a crime, he cannot be punished a second time. That is, a person can only be punished once. And I tell him, Arlando, the man has already served 10 years in prison.

Pavlovich:
And specifically for your episodes.

Lawyer:
Yes, for your episodes. I tell him, look, agents, look, the verdict even says everything about this. And he says, you know, the agents who worked on your case, they left the secret service a long time ago, I can’t contact them, I don’t know, these are Belarusian documents, I don’t know how I can trust them,
I don’t know, he says, I don’t know.

Pavlovich:
Well, and then the war started. How can you trust them at all? I wrote to you then how, right? That is, make an official request to the Ministry of Justice, the Prosecutor General's Office, the Supreme Court, the Ministry of Internal Affairs, for example. And to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. That is, at least one of the five authorities will respond. Well, the war has started and so on.

Lawyer:
I offered him this option.

Pavlovich:
Official requests.

Lawyer:
Yes, I told him, make it official. If you don’t believe what I gave you, no problem. Make an official request.

Pavlovich:
I didn’t expect him to believe it. We just showed it, and his task, of course, was to make an official request.

Lawyer:
Yes. 100% it’s the same as I told him. I told him, Arnado, okay, you don’t want to believe my documents. You don’t want to believe the book you read, this book. You don’t want to believe my statements. No problem. So, make a request to Belarus. And what you get, you get. And then we’ll see if I’m right or not. He tells me, I don’t want to make a request to Belarus. It’s such a big deal, I don’t know.
He tells me, I’ll give you another option. “If you find this agent, this Kinsley…”

How the lawyer looked for a Secret Service agent
Pavlovich:
Ryan Kinsley?

Lawyer:
Yeah, Ryan Knisely. Yeah, yeah, yeah, something like that. He says this agent has long since left for the secret service, he's already kind of in the private industry, he's kind of a private citizen. He says if you find this agent, you contact him. And if this agent calls me, the prosecutor will call me and say that yes, what was written in the documents is true, and that they were involved, because it was 15 years ago, you know? He himself doesn't know what was there and what wasn't.
And he says if this agent calls me and says yes, it was true, maybe I'll believe you. And I started hunting for this agent. First of all...

Pavlovich:
Lenke Dana, I remember.

Lawyer:
You sent me Facebook, Lenke Dana. Yeah, I wrote it, I googled it on the air, I tried to find it in any way I could. I wrote to him on Linkton, and in order to write a message on Linkton, you have to be a premium member, so to speak, it’s a paid service.

Pavlovich:
Well, they give it for 7 days, I think, or 10.

Lawyer:
I don’t remember exactly, I had to register on Linkton, sort of upgrade my account, so that I could write. So, I write to him on Linkton, he doesn’t answer me. Then, you see, I found out that he, he worked in security, there’s this big company called Kosco.

Pavlovich:
Kosco, right?

Lawyer:
Kosco, yes.

Pavlovich:
A supermarket chain?

Lawyer:
Yes, yes, a supermarket chain, where you buy at wholesale prices.
And he worked there in cyber security, in this Kosco. I called him at this Kosco, wrote emails, I left him messages. He just ignored me. I don’t know why, he just didn’t call me back. I told him this way and that way.

Pavlovich:
But do you think that your messages and anything else got through to him? He just ignored it, or has it not gotten through yet?

Lawyer:
Well, I left a voice message for him on his phone at Costco. I mean, I called him, his secretary answered. I said, can I talk to Ryan? He said, I'll put you through to his line. The answering machine came on, and I left a message. A few times. I think he probably should have heard it. Or his secretary should have known that I called. I was texting him on LinkedIn, I was fucking him. He just, just ignored me.
Some time goes by. So I call Arlando back. I say, Arlando, I... No way. Huh? No way. I tell him, yeah, I tell him, I can't, like, get through to him. I don't know, well, I don't know what to do, you know? What you're asking is basically impossible. So I told him, he works at Costco, maybe you can get in touch with him. He tells me, no, I'm not going to contact anyone, I'm busy this way and that, I'm not interested.
If you find him, I'll talk to him, maybe I'll change my mind. And I kept looking for him, but in the end I realized that I wasn't going to get anywhere with Ryan. And so I had to kind of develop a different strategy to move this case forward. And then, if you remember, in May I wrote a big 15-page letter, it was May of '22, well, almost a year, a little more than a year ago. I'm
writing him a huge letter to this Orlando prosecutor. You have a letter from him, if you want...

Pavlovich:
Yes, we'll show on the screen what arguments we're using.

Lawyer:
Yes, if you want to post it on YouTube, that's your decision. I wrote him a huge letter, 14 pages. As exhibits, I attached to this letter, I think there were 14 exhibits. So, there were your...

Pavlovich:
Well, these examples, precedents, yes, you mean?

Lawyer:
There were precedents. Plus, there were these documents that we received from the Belarusian court. There were many different things. And in this letter, I make different arguments. The first argument I kind of make to him, I tell him, look, if we go to court, if I file a petition in court and go to the judge, I will make these arguments, we can win on the basis of this, let's say, this and this.
That was my first argument. The second argument, it was double jappery. I tell him, well, Orlando, look, there are precedents, there are laws.

Pavlovich:
I think you gave about seven examples on double jappery that something like this has already happened.

How the lawyer persuaded the prosecutor to close the case
Lawyer:
Yes, yes. I tell him that the man served 7 years, 10 years in prison. And plus I tell him that here's another, that is, argument, that a complaint. At that time I didn't know that you had an indit. We later accidentally, I'll tell you now, found out that you had an indit. Because if I had known this, I would have approached it differently. At that moment, I only knew that you had an indit. And that's it. I make different arguments to him. I send him all this.
I tell him, Orlando, we're going, if you don't voluntarily withdraw this yourself, these arguments that I'm now giving you in this letter, I'm filing a petition in court, and we're going to court, and we're going to fight in court so that the judge himself closes this complaint. He's silent. You have to understand that all of this took 3 years, it all lasted 3 years. I call him there, well, what, as if they were pushing him, well, the teams, what progress, what, what, what, what.
And then, it means, at the end of 22nd year, we started negotiations, as it were, on this document that I sent him. And this interesting thing happened. He tells me, by chance, it seems to me, he himself forgot about it, that I did not know that there was no indentation. He himself told me about it, he forgot about it. So why is it hidden at all? Look, indentation, it is classified. Usually, as a rule, in most cases indentation is called underseal.
That is, it is classified and it is only sort of revealed after the arrest of a person. The reason why? Because they do not want a person in most cases to know that he probably has a criminal case, because if he knows, he will hide. There are many points there. And at that moment, this entire period until the end of 22, I didn’t even know that you had an inding, that they showed this case to the grand jury.
All those arguments that they make, like the compliance is not fresh, that there are certain periods between the complets and indits that were violated. All these arguments only related to the compliance. As soon as you get an inding, most of these arguments, they fall away. Yes, the documents... But doublejopari anyway? No doublejopari, no doublejopari. But still, I understood that this was not such a strong argument to close this case. And so we are negotiating with him.
I called him constantly. But I had already pestered him so much that he was completely fed up with it. I was already thinking, my God, he’s going to send me to triboku soon, like, leave me alone. The number you have dialed is not available. Yeah, yeah, yeah. One hundred percent, one hundred percent. And at the end of the year, at the end of 22, I already understand that he had already looked through this document, that he had looked through all my arguments.
He had already read all these Belarusian documents that we had given him, it seemed to me that he had already begun to believe, that is, we had convinced him that you had actually served time for what you were accused of in America. That was the most important thing.

Pavlovich:
Well, in general, it was all that simple, right? Just send an official request, tell the secretary that, listen, send it to the Belarusian prosecutor's office and to the Ministry of Justice just in case, here and there, to five places, send one for the same request, please send a copy of the court's verdict. It was the easiest way.

Lawyer:
He refused to do it. He simply refused.

Pavlovich:
Well, we understand that this was the easiest way.

Lawyer:
Well, for us. I told him, you have a special process - make a statement to Belarus, they will answer you. If you don't want to believe me, you will believe the Belarusian court. He refused to do it. And so I suffered for a year or more just to convince him, just to convince him, so that he would believe us that you actually served 10 years for what you did against America. And most importantly, we must, I must, what was my job? To convince him that you have already led...
Two things. The first is that you have already been punished for what you did against America. The second is that you are not involved in cybercrime, that you are a journalist, an influencer, you have a YouTube channel, you are generally not involved in crime, and that it is only fair that they should close this case. Our most important progress was at the end of 2022, when, you see, Yastin started negotiating, and during a conversation with him, he accidentally, it seemed to me, accidentally blurted out, there is already an indentation against you in court.
Not just a compliment, but an indentation that was filed there in the mid-2000s, and it has been hanging in court since then. It seemed to me that he did not even realize that he let it slip. Do you understand? I do not think that he should have told me about it. It seems to me that I have been working with him for so long, and he simply forgot all these compliments, indents, and he simply let it slip.
He says, yes, there is an indentation. When I heard this, I was like wow. I was shocked. Because I realized that most of the arguments that I wrote in the letter in May, they are completely irrelevant. And that if we had gone to court with these arguments, 99% of the time we would have simply lost.
Thank God that we decided to work with him in a good way. That we did not file petitions. I just worked with him as a human being. Without any wars in court. Because to beat off an indentured servitude... Compliance is one thing. There is a stale compliance - that is one thing. It is generally impossible to beat off an indentured servitude under American law. And so he tells me, yes, I have an indentured servitude.
He says, well, you know, yes, you talked me into it. I believe you that he served time for the punishment that he inflicted, that he committed against America. For that crime, right? Yes, that means for the crime that he committed in America. And in that 14-page letter that I sent him, I even gave him examples in that letter. I tell him, look, it says here, Ryan Kinsey.

Pavlovich:
I made notes for you, page such and such, page such and such, and circled them.

Lawyer:
Yes, so what did I do? I took your compliment, which was public, I took the verdict and I, therefore, compared them. In this same letter, it’s all described. And I tell him, look at the American indictment and compare it with the Belarusian verdict. It’s almost the same there. Well, it’s the same there.
And he tells me, you know, yes, it’s been, I think, already the beginning of 2023, he tells me, okay, Igor, you convinced me, I believe you, I believe you, that he has already been punished for America, but he tells me, you understand that I don’t decide everything myself, I can’t just close the case on my own. Pavlovich

:
And he’s a prosecutor, it turns out, of the district, right?

Lawyer:
He says, I can’t just close this case because I decided to do so. I need to go to my supervisor there.

Pavlovich:
So an even higher-ranking prosecutor? Yes, yes. Is this the state's attorney?

Lawyer:
No, no, in the prosecutor's office he is not the last resort, he has a manager there, he has the chief prosecutor of the entire district. He says, I can't just do this, this is not my only decision, I am not the only person who decides this. I need to go to my supervisor, to my manager, to my boss, to show them all this, to explain it all to them and see what they say.
If they agree that this case can fairly be closed, maybe we will close it, but it will take time. He tells me that it will take some time, a couple of months, I don't know, I don't know at all what the supervisor will tell me, maybe they will refuse me altogether, I don't know, it is as it is, go to the supervisor, what can I do, go to the supervisor and we'll see what happens.

Pavlovich:
By the way, in America they are now trying people on three counts, he admits the accusation of Biden's son, this hunter. Tax crime and a charge of illegal weapons storage.

Lawyer:
He is taking a plea bargain for a minor crime. They agreed that he would not go to prison. They will give him a suspended sentence.

Pavlovich:
Can you imagine that in our countries, in Russia, Belarus and so on, that the president's son would even be brought to trial. Can you imagine that at least someone would dare to open a case? Not to mention a trial. They criticize Biden, it's ridiculous, but their son, nevertheless. I don't praise America, there is no particular reason to love it yet, but in general, everything is probably more transparent and more open.

Lawyer:
Look, we have a good justice system, it is not perfect. In my opinion, there are different opinions, ask a hundred people, you will let a hundred different opinions in. In my opinion, this system is good. It is a good system, it is not perfect, there are things that can be worked on. But in principle, yes, it is independent, and even relatives of politicians are getting criminal cases.

About the Trump case
Lawyer:
Even former President Trump, he is now being accused of a criminal case.

Pavlovich:
And what do you think about Trump, by the way?

Lawyer:
I think he is in a bad way, things are bad, that the charges are very strong. He now has two criminal cases in New York and this is a state case, and in Florida a federal case.
Plus he has two more cases going on, most likely, at the end of this summer he will have another criminal case in Georgia and then another federal case in Washington-Dissey for what happened on January 6, when Congress was there, so I think...

Pavlovich:
He is simply trying to turn the case so that it is political persecution with the aim of preventing him from participating in the next elections.

Lawyer:
This is his theory, everyone has the right to their own defense. The method of defense. Yes, everyone has the right to claim that he is kind of defending himself, this is normal, we will see how the jury trials end. But the only thing I will say is that the criminal grand jury investigation that began in America, it began before he announced his candidacy for president.

Pavlovich:
And does this also play a role?

Lawyer:
It's just that most people say that the reason why he announced his candidacy for president so early...

Pavlovich:
Oh, to avoid criminal prosecution.

What was in Sergei's case
Lawyer:
To avoid criminal prosecution. True, not true, I don't know, but what some people say. So our system is good. It's not perfect. I think your example shows that it is possible to work in it, and if you have an adequate prosecutor and a talented lawyer, and we choose the right strategy, the case can be closed.
So what was in your case? We already came to 23rd year, he tells me that we need a supervisor, I can't do it myself, I need to consult there and we waited for months because I didn't want to just
bomb him on the phone there every week there three weeks passed I called him he says oh no there is no answer yet I'm still waiting I need to talk to the agents I need to talk to my boss there that's all there Washington there the fifth tenth and months pass months pass, I call him, and it just was, he tells me, Igor, you know what, I looked through everything, I read everything,
I listened to all your arguments, I read this letter that you wrote, 14 pages, I talked to my supervisor, and we decided, like America, like the prosecutor's office, the American prosecutor's office, that we are no longer interested in Sergei, that But we, in Interpol, are removing the rednoughts, on the basis of which people are detained when they cross the border.

Pavlovich:
You remember, I was detained even when it was autumn this year, it will be two years, yes, in St. Petersburg then, on the basis of this red Interpol mark.

Lawyer:
Yes, yes, yes. And, then, he tells me, Igor, we, then, decided that we are dropping the case against Sergei. You convinced us that, firstly, he served time for punishment, for This crime against America, that's the first thing. Yes, ten domes on his back, there, stuffed. That's the first thing. The second thing is that he is no longer a criminal, that he is a journalist, that he is an influencer, that he is engaged in legal activities.
And did this also have any significance? Yes, yes. But look, if they suspected that you were still engaged in cybercrime, they would never have dropped this case against you. Never. Because why, what's the point, you know? If you are still a criminal. And this was very important. I tell him, look, I even sent him every month, like, oh, look, he already has 400 thousand subscribers, in a couple of months 425 thousand subscribers.
Like, he is growing, look at his videos here and there. What topics does he discuss. Your YouTube is in Russian, so he couldn't understand. I was trying to explain. And already this year he tells me, Igor, we are closing the case against Sergey, you convinced us, he is a good person, he is not in cyber, he has already been punished, and what he has already done.
And he simply says, this case has been so long, no matter how cruelly years have passed, what is the point of putting him in jail now? Well, in a year it will be 20 years, Roma. He says, what is the point already, we are ready to close this case. I just heard this, I am telling you. Because I will tell you honestly, when we started this whole process in 2020, I could never believe that it would all be closed so successfully.
Of course, I hoped, I wanted to help you, because when I saw your video, here on YouTube, your very first video, it really touched me. I just, you know, I did not become a lawyer to make money. Honestly.

Pavlovich:
Well, that too.

Lawyer:
I did not become a lawyer to help people. I handle all the cases myself. I don't have assistants. Like many lawyers, you hire one lawyer, they sell you God knows who, Petya, Masha, Grisha, I don't know, a fifth, someone else, God knows who. You hire one person, but in reality another person is assigned to your case, they sell you some mythical teams. I handle all criminal cases myself.

Pavlovich:
But your time is also limited, especially since the child is small.

Lawyer:
Well, yes, I recently had a daughter, but I'm still interested in it. You see, I'm interested in it, firstly, in this way, when you do everything yourself, you gain enormous experience.

Pavlovich:
Experience, yes.

Lawyer:
Enormous, when you don't have any assistants, when I fly all over America, I have all my appearances in court. This doesn't mean that I win everything. You see, the court is such a thing that sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. Anything can happen in court, you see, there are no guarantees. And the prosecutor's office works in criminal law in such a way that before starting a case, they collect such a base of evidence that, according to statistics, justified contracts in America are generally, well, a tiny percentage.
I knew that when I took on your case, I wanted to help you, but I didn’t know that we could, like, that I would be successful, that I wanted to try, I wanted to, like, do everything possible. And I also remember you said that you contacted different lawyers, that before I introduced you...
There were about two, yes. Not about, but there were definitely two. Yes, before me, you contacted different lawyers, and no one could help you at all. They all offered you some kind of incomprehensible cooperation, some other stupid topics. That is, no one could help you. I am the only one who found a way, not because you called me, not because you paid me some big money.
I just wanted to help you as a person. You see, I just wanted to help you. But I didn’t know at that moment that we would be successful. And now three years later, well, two and a half years later, when he tells me, Orlando, on the phone that, Igor, we are closing the case against Sergey, my heart just sank, seriously. I was just in such shock, and you can’t imagine it.
I remember when I called you and told you about it, we were, well, both in shock. And what is the situation now?

Pavlovich:
Even my cat was shocked. Seriously, I told Katya, he told Vlad, he told the cat, everyone was in shock.

Lawyer:
Oh, did you tell BadB about this?

Pavlovich:
No, Vlad, yours.

What is happening with Sergey’s case now?
Lawyer:
Oh, my Vlad, I understand, okay, okay. And what do we have now? Look, we are in Dubai now, it’s the end of June 2023. Forty degrees of heat. Oh, this is absolutely terrible. What do we have now at the moment? They took you away from Interpol. You are no longer in Interpol. They are not interested in arresting you. They are not interested in trying you.
But they have to go... Listen, what is an indictment? An indictment is an official document that the prosecutor simply cannot come to court and pick up. They have to get permission from the judge. Do you understand? Only the judge, only the judge himself can dismiss an indictment.

Pavlovich:
Well, as a final authority.

Lawyer:
Yes, yes. The prosecutor himself cannot do this. That is, the prosecutor can come to court and make a recommendation, say, like, look, judge, we want to dismiss this indictment, please, for some reason. Well, in the end, only the judge decides this, it is not the prosecutor's decision.

Pavlovich:
Well, this is the case all over the world, in principle, the court puts the final point if the case has already been transferred there, so to speak.

Lawyer:
And the most interesting thing is that there were situations when the judge said, no, I will not, I will not allow you to close this indictment. You filed it, you must pursue this case to the end. These are not my problems. The Grand Jury said that there was a crime, that's all. So in what cases does this happen? Well, in such exotic cases. I have never had this. But you hear about it.
What if, let's say, a person, let's say, cooperated, or, let's say, for some other reasons, and the prosecutor says, we want to dismiss the inding. And the judge says, how? No. He committed such a serious crime there. It's unfair. He, let's say, killed two people there, caused some small cooperation, do you want to let them either close the case, or give him some small punishment. The judge can say, no, I don't accept this.
This happens very rarely. In 95% of cases, the judge will say what the prosecutor says. But in principle, the idea is that the judge can refuse. There is no guarantee that the judge will say yes. So, at what stage are we now? You have this inding, which is classified, I haven't even seen it.
It's just summer now, it's like the end of June, in America a lot of people in the prosecutor's office go on vacation, in August everything is closed there, there's nothing, and not only the prosecutor's office, but the judges themselves, yes, they go on vacation. I already said, they're not chasing you, they're not interested in you, they've removed the Red Notice from Interpol, and they're not planning to arrest you and extradite you to the US, but we have one last step left, where we have to go to court, where the prosecutor's office has to file a petition to the court, and we'll have a hearing.
We'll have a hearing in San Diego, where, at which, at this hearing, I hope it will be, I don't know exactly, we don't have a date right now, but I think it will be either in September or October. I don't think it will be this summer, because, firstly, the prosecutors are busy, plus it's summer.
Well, and from September, probably,

Pavlovich:
Also more important matters, probably closer to October there.

Lawyer:
I think either at the end of September or in October. So I don’t know when this video will come out. If this video comes out before then, maybe you’ll make a small update later, when we formally have a hearing in court. And when the judge himself officially dismisses the indenture. And after that you’ll be, well, completely free. It’s 100% certain that the indenture will be closed, and they’ll never be able to make a new indenture.
Because, like, there’s an expiration date. In a federal case, it’s, like, 10 years. If the case hasn’t been opened within 10 years after the crime, it can’t be opened. And your last criminal cases were in the 2000s. In 2008. Yes. And that’s why we’re waiting for it now. So look, you can travel the world. You can live where you want to live.
In Russia or in another country where you decide. But not here. Well, not in Dubai, right? And where will you decide. Your case, you could say, is already, I would say, closed. Only a formality remains. This is us in September or October. We go to court in San Diego. The prosecutor's office files, then, a petition.
Your case is closed. The judge, perhaps, will not make a decision right away. Because when we file papers in court, the judge is also busy. Do you understand? He has hundreds of cases there. Especially in California. It is a very busy, well, district. There are a lot of criminal... There are a lot of miligals there. Therefore, I think that, it means, they will file papers, I think, in September, in October, we will see how long it will take the judge to review it all, read it and schedule a hearing.
And I hope that by the end of this year, I hope that the case will already be completely officially dismissed. And after that we can say that you are already 100%, now, as I would say, 99%, and after this last step, it will already be 100%. But I think it is a formality. I do not think there will be any problems, because for a judge to refuse to dissolve the indenture by the prosecutor's office, I think, especially a case that is 20 years old, I think the chance of this happening is zero.
Therefore, I think you can not worry. Let's say that 99.9% of your indenture will be closed this year.

What else does Igor
Pavlovich do:
But 99.9% is more than the 95% you mentioned. That is the kind of graduation we are getting, friends. It was all a little exciting, it was exciting to fly out of Russia for the first time, knowing such a track record behind you. It was exciting to go through it, my wife and I went to Georgia.
By the way, I really liked Tbilisi, after that I flew to Dubai, and there were no problems anywhere. Igor Litvak, zontlaw.com, we will leave his website under the video, and you see, here is a person who goes to court and calls the prosecutor himself and solves your problems and ours too. And what other area do you have? I also deal with emigration.
That is, criminal law, in my example, okay, what else?

Lawyer:
Emigration, I do emigration, emigration law, I have a website called zontlaw.com. Also a lot of people from Russia, from the CIS.

Pavlovich:
Do you mean obtaining refugee status?

Lawyer:
Refugee status, family reunification, anything. Business visas, talent visas. I even had guys who opened a competitor to Uber. There was such a company, called Fasten. It was like ride-sharing, they were in Boston, three Russians, they made an investment, opened such a company in 2015-2016 in Boston, they competed with Uber.
Can you imagine? With Uber. And on this basis we made them green cards, all of them, these three Russians. This company later went bankrupt, but it doesn’t matter, they kind of didn’t survive the battle with Uber, but it was a very interesting project.

Pavlovich:
But did they need it for a visa or did they really want it?

Lawyer:
To develop the project? But, but, it was a real project. They worked, they had, that is, they took the market in Boston, they had a market in Texas. They actually had a right, they had a cool EP, it was FastenApp, it was rightsharing, it was a very cool project. I was so rooting for them, I thought, will this really kill Uber? They didn’t kill Uber, they worked for a couple of years in the American market, and then they couldn’t withstand the competition with Uber, with Lyft, and they had to close the company.
But they got a Greencard.

Pavlovich:
Can we have talent visas, on what grounds are they given? Can bloggers, for example, be given talent visas?

Lawyer:
No, talent visas are not given to bloggers. Talent is given, for example, to scientists, athletes, sportsmen. Then, then, they give you something, you make some kind of developments there, like new ones, something like that.

Pavlovich:
And entrepreneurs? Well, in your case, they were just businessmen, entrepreneurs created some kind of business.

Lawyer:
Yes, but that's not a talent visa. A talent visa is a little different. An entrepreneur visa is a little different. That is, when a person opens a company in America and invests money in America, in this company, and this company operates, and you, as if the CEO, some kind of executive, on the basis of this company, which operates in the USA, you are given PMJ status. That's one way. Then there is another way, you can simply buy a green card.
In fact, not buy it, but simply, let's say, make an investment in the USA.

Pavlovich:
Well, I read there recently, it's about 800 or 900 thousand dollars today.

Lawyer:
There are two types of visas, that is, investment. There is an investment of 500 thousand, and there is an investment of 1 million dollars. That is, you do not need to open a company. You just, let's say, put, let's say, you invested, let's say, it is very popular now in America, well, at one time it was to invest in real estate. You kind of invest, let's say, a million dollars in this real estate. Well, someone is building a skyscraper, you gave him a million dollars. Based on this, you can also make a green card.
That is, these are the methods. That is, there is H1B, that is, work visas. People come to America to work for Google, for various American companies. That is why we are doing this. Now, I would say, recently, when the war began, a lot of Russians through Mexico, there was just such a wave...

Pavlovich:
Illegal?

Lawyer:
They are kind of legal, I will explain how it works. A lot of Russians go to Mexico, who want to emigrate to the USA. They go to Mexico. Mexicans come to the border with America and immediately go to the officer. That is, they try to pass illegally. They reach the American border and immediately go to the American officer, the immigration officer. And they tell him, for such and such reasons we want to get political asylum in the USA.
And they are given it, okay, no problem.

Pavlovich:
And maybe they will kick them back out and that's it, go back to Mexico? No, no, they can't. He is not on US territory yet.

Lawyer:
No, it works for a person. First, you go to the officer, and you have to tell the officer your story. On what grounds did you go for political asylum? On what grounds? You have to tell him your story. The officer is the first person who hears this story.
If the officer decides that you actually have, based on the story you told, you have grounds for political asylum, they give you a piece of paper, let you into America, in most cases that's how it is, the US lets them in, they give you the right to work there and, let's say, in six months to the immigration court. And now the latest one, when the war in Ukraine started, a very large wave of Russians through Mexico, that's how they are coming to America now. I have a bunch of cases on this matter now, and we'll see how it all ends.
People have different stories, some...

Pavlovich:
But which one is best to go with?

Lawyer:
Well, there is no best one, it has to be truthful, you understand?

Pavlovich:
No, well, any can be made more or less truthful. Well, let's say, by sex, well, by gender, like, gay, for example, LGBT, yes, maybe there is a better chance. Baptists have less, for example, there, something else.

Lawyer:
I wouldn’t say that if you’re, say, gay, you have more chances there than, say, because you were stopped, because you went to pickets or, say, you worked at Navalny’s headquarters. Both of these, like, well, grounds have good chances. You just have to understand, if you have evidence, you know, sometimes people call me and say, “Oh, I went to a single picket, and I was detained there.” Okay, you have some court documents, you have documents from the police, you have witnesses, you have photographs.
I need some evidence. Just coming to the migration court, just telling the story – that’s not enough.

Pavlovich:
Photos, maybe some more….

Lawyer:
Photos, you know, witnesses. We even had cases, but it wasn’t with Russia, I had a client from Nigeria. It has nothing to do with Russia. When we had a hearing, we had two witnesses in Nigeria. I arranged for them to go to the American embassy in Nigeria and testify via video, in the immigration court in America.
That too. That is, you must have witnesses. Just telling your story from your mouth is not enough. It is simply not enough. You need to have something more.

Pavlovich:
Well, and now Russians are given political asylum in the United States after the war began. Do they? Or has the situation worsened?

Lawyer:
Yes, they do. American laws on political asylum have not changed. They were the same before the war, and they remain the same after the war. You just need to prove that, based on 5 categories, your sexuality, political opinion, your gender, whether it is a man or a woman, political opinion.
Based on these 5 categories, you must show that if you return, let's say, to your homeland, then it could be any country, it doesn't matter, Russia, anywhere, that you will be suppressed, you will be repressed. You need protection in America. If you can prove it, they give it to you, of course, without any problems. There are a lot of Russians who... Well, look, the war has been going on for a year and a half now. The immigration courts are full, they are kind of full. And people are waiting for the trial, they can wait a year or two.
And the people who started coming in February 22, their trials are only just starting now. Just now. That's why there are no such big statistics, because it's just starting now, there are no big statistics. I think that in a year we will understand. But in principle, most of the people who are now, like... What I see, at least, what people claim is that the people who are now coming to the States, they have two reasons.
Or are these political reasons, let's say they are in the opposition, they were stopped because of this in some way or did not go to prison. This is one topic. And another topic is gays. That is, they are kind of homosexuals, but kind of gay, and they were stopped for this reason too. These are the two reasons that I see most of all.
I am also involved in a third area, kind of family law and divorces. I only recently started this, we are currently building a website on this topic. But this is also one of the areas that I am involved in.

Pavlovich:
As I understand it, you make a separate website for each area? Yes, yes, yes. Does this have its effect or might it be simpler and more logical to run it under the supervision of one company, one firm?

Lawyer:
Look, if I had decided from the very beginning, when I started practicing, that I would do three things, maybe I would have made one website. Or five of them, maybe in the future. Yes, it doesn't matter. That is, if I, for example, when I started practicing in 2012, like, well, in law, if at that moment I started doing, let's say, immigration, criminal law and family law, maybe I would have immediately made a website for all three things. But I had a slightly different story.
So, when I started practicing as a lawyer, I went exclusively into criminal law. That is, I did nothing but criminal law. I had my own firm. Plus I worked with others. I had a firm in March where I worked, I worked part-time, not full-time. I worked for them. That's why for the first 5 years I only had criminal law. I didn't do anything else at all. And that's why, based on that, I made a website for myself.
A website that was focused only on criminal law. And that's all. If you go to my website nyccrimelawyer.Com, that's all there is to it. There, by the way, both in Russian and in English, only about this. And then, when later I started to expand my horizons, I started to deal with emigration and started to deal with family divorces, there was no point in adding this to the site that existed, you know, because I have a site nyccrimelawyer.Com.
I will not add, like, immigration law there, you know? So I decided, I made separate sites for everything because of this, because that’s how it just happened. And secondly, just like from the point of view of marketing, from the point of view of, like, SEO, it’s better. It’s better when you have separate sites, especially when you do Google there, well, Google Campaign, there PPC, Pay Per Click, it also works better.
When you have a separate site, you have a separate, like, PC campaign.

Pavlovich:
Well, a targeted site, right? One that’s tailored specifically for a specific audience.

Lawyer:
Yes, yes, yes. Because when people search for a lawyer on Google, they type in certain search terms, and when you have one site with 10 different topics, it’s, well, it’s a bit confusing, you know? But let’s say a person went to my site Umbrella, it’s only about immigration, he understands, okay, this is an immigration company, they deal with emigration, and you don’t need to call anything else, you can work with them. So in this sense, it’s better.

Results
Pavlovich:
You need to ask Shestakov to do a search of all your sites. P. Sev, specifically, is a very serious specialist. Well, there you go. Well, that’s the issue, friends, and we’ll go for a walk around Dubai, yes. By the way, you write options, I’m already moving, yes, where should I go to live, in your opinion, and why, or where would you like to live, well, on legal issues related to America. And not only. Here, Igor Litvak, please love and favor.
Three years together, as they say. Forever and ever. Hugs, bye.

Igor Litvak's website on criminal defense: https://nyccrimelawyer.com