Political and Legal Doctrines. (Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis)

Instead of an Introduction

Introduction is usually a small nonsense, which prepares the reader for the bigger one; it is written only at the end, printed at the very beginning and is not readable by anyone either at the beginning or at the end, if ever anyone would be interested to read any book . Introduction is a text area in which the author justifies what he intended to make trying implicitly to convince someone (as a rule, mainly himself) that really did it, being not aware that as a rule this is not so.

And then in an age like ours, which is primarily a scene of mass and visual culture, where not only almost everyone is claiming knowledge of almost everything, but almost everyone writes about everything, almost nobody reads anything, writing of such voluminous book undoubtedly and in advance makes it almost unreadable.

Thus, in the light of the above, once I wrote the book, at least in my view and at least for me it turned out that one of the hardest things to write in a book is precisely the Introduction.

Why I wrote this voluminous book?

There is a version whereby when Euripides presented a drama and the Athenians asked him to discard a number of texts which are not liked by them, he answered that he wrote all this to teach them, and not they to teach him. I, however, I have no a drop reason to even say such a thing, not for another, but simply because when more than 35 (thirty five) years I started to write this book, I undertook this initiative with a single objective, namely : to teach myself. And all the while as I have written I have had the superb understanding that it is absolutely inseparable from my personal life, and that while writing the book I wrote my fate, and vice versa - while writing my fate - I wrote the book.

And for me it was because I lived (and, quite firmly I am still living!) at a time when the type of precisely this political and legal knowledge contained in this book, is perceived by the ruling in Bulgarian society political and legal paradigm as extremely dangerous for it, and hence it (the knowledge)becomes extremely dangerous to the holder of knowledge itself, i.e. myself.

In this connection, let me just mention in passing that from the declassified archives of the Bulgarian State Security is apparent clear that once the secret services became aware that I write something in this area, for more than ten years they have taken several top secret plans and have taken separate concrete operational measures to try to get if not all, at least part of the texts written by me1. That is why even today I am absolutely positive that if I chose another paradigm of interpreting the same phenomena which are interpreted here, then my personal fate would have been quite different.

That is why ultimately I would leave open the question: "Would this voluminous book have some other value to someone else, than that it has for me?"
__________

1 Although certain types of readers (and especially - from the related mechanisms of the criminal communist system) would complain that what I will mention here could be defined as at least "non-academic, I will still mention it since the incident is inextricably linked and it is extremely important as part of the very history of this book, as well as the deepest essence of the practical and theoretical knowledge that I acquired over the years through the contact with the special institutions of the political and legal system without which skills and with scientific theses developed here today in this voluminous series would have a one-sided and "meagre" nature.

When in February 1984 I have definitely knew that my arrest is very imminent, I complete two copies of this book with two copies of "Alphabetic truths” and buried them in two different places in our property in my native village - one in floor of a room of the house and the other – in the floor of the building, which holds hay for livestock. When in May 1984 they arrested me, for several months investigators very strongly wanted me to "make confession" as to in which Western embassy I gave these books manuscripts or where I hid them, and I persistently argued that I have not written anything like that and nothing I'm hiding, but so far, though, really, I spoke to different people that I wrote such books, it was a bluff, through which I wanted to create work for the secret services not to be bored, and they must be grateful to me as those of my "stories" have served as an occasion to open new highly paid jobs and retention of more officers from the Secret Service, and so actually I've been kind of their employer. When in August 1984 the investigators almost stopped me for questioning the manuscripts of these books, I suddenly played out theatre with the "confession" and explained that in February, when everything was frozen, I was packed the manuscripts and buried them in the laystall where we throw the livestock manure, but that in March when the snow was already melted, I excavated them, and once I saw that they were imbued with the bath water, I threw them back to the dumpster, where they remained .

Right to meeting with my parents I received only in April 1985, and then my father (from whom I inherited exactly my jocular inclination) in the presence of an officer of State Security (who necessarily attended during the visiting), in theatrical manner thanked me for that though missing, I have taken care to help him in carrying out an agricultural operation, as I have asked officers of the special services grubbing garbage dump, thanks to which is secured the process of so-called "overcooking" of the manure without which process the manure would be not fit for fertilization of agriculture plants...



Political and Legal Doctrines.
(Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis),
Vol. 1. The Ancient East. – Sofia, Ianus, 2006. – 486 pp.
Bulgarian
First Edition
Author: Ianko Nikolov Iankov
Editor: Nikolay Vladimirov Mihaylov
Dimensions: 70 х 100/16
Published by: IANUS Publishing Company
ISBN 954-8550-42-3 (Том 1)


Contents
Instead of an Introduction 8

Chapter I. Political and legal doctrines of Mesopotamia 11

§ 1. The most common characteristic of the first
and the oldest civilization in the world 11
1. Inception of the Mesopotamian civilization 11
2. Mesopotamian religion and mythology 18
3. Mesopotamian writing, literature and science 32
4. Social stratification and everyday life 38
5. War as a way of life of the first civilization 40

§ 2. Power management system and state in Mesopotamia 45
1. Emergence and establishment of urban civilization
and statehood 45
2. Ruler 50
3. Council (National Assembly) 54
4. Babylon 64
5. Assyria 72
6. Accad 79
7. Hattie 80

§ 3. Origin and development of written law in Mesopotamia 87
1. Reasons for emerging of Mesopotamian law and its role
in human culture 87
2. Genre characteristic of Mesopotamian law 94
3. Specific characteristics of Mesopotamian law 97
4. Social structure and law in Mesopotamia 101
5. The notion of so-called ME and its role 108

§ 4. Divination in Mesopotamia 111

§ 5. Asian mode of production and typology
of primary fire-sides of statehood
and civilization in Mesopotamia 119

Chapter II. Political and legal doctrines
of Ancient Egypt 126

§ 1. Formation and Development
of Ancient Egyptian statehood 126
1. Historical sources and chronology 126
2. Theoretical aspects of formation
of the ancient Egyptian statehood 136
§ 2. Ancient Egyptian religion 141
1. The earliest forms of ancient Egyptian religion 141
2. Leading aspects of ancient Egyptian religion 146

§ 3. Political views in Ancient Egypt 163
1. The power of Pharaoh 163
2. Other lordly positions in Ancient Egypt 174
3. Political oratory 176

§ 4. Law and Justice in Ancient Egypt 179
1. Early research on ancient Egyptian law 179
2. System of justice and substance of law
in Ancient Egypt 180

§ 5. The relationship of the ancient Egyptian religion
and culture with European ancient world,
Judaism and Christianity 193
1. Relationship with the European ancient world 193
2. The connection to Judaism 195
3. Relationship with Christianity 196

Chapter III. Political and legal doctrines
of Ancient Iran 201

§ 1. The main focus of Ancient Iran’s
socio-political developments 201
1. Pre-ahemenid’s era 201
2. Ahemenid’s dynasty era 205
3. Post-ahemenid’s era 224

§ 2. Religion, political doctrine and law of ancient Iran 229
1. Zoroastrianism 229
2. Mithraism 253
3. Manichaeism 263
4. Nestorianism 274

[b]Chapter IV. Political and legal doctrines
of Judea 277
§ 1. Key highlights from ethnic,
religious and state Jews history 277
1. Beginning 277
2. Conquest of Canaan and the time of the judges 284
3. The House of David and revitalized Judea 289
4. Under the Greek government 297
5. Again, an independent Judea 299
6. Judea during the Roman Empire 302
7. Jews in Babylon 312
8. Jews in Arabia 316
§ 2. Jewish Biblical Studies 318
§ 3. Essence of Jewish law 350
§ 4. Jewish doctrine of power, state and individual 357

[b]Chapter V. Political and legal doctrines
of Ancient China 374
§ 1. Main points of the socio -
history of Ancient China 374
1. Beginning 374
2. State and empire of the dynasty
Chzhau (Zhou), also called the Qing Dynasty (Blue) 379
3. Empire of the Han Dynasty 383
4. The ancient Chinese emperors and their functions 384
5. National Assembly in Ancient China 388
6. Indigenous nature of Chinese civilization
and its alternativeness to the European 389

§ 2. Socio-political and legal views
of Ancient China 393
1. Mythology 393
2. Shamanism 396
3. Historiography 402
4. Teachings of Gun-chzhou 407
5. Teachings of legism 409
6. Teachings of Lao Tszi and daosism 422
7. Teachings of Confucius and confucianism 431
8. Teachings of Mo-Di and moism 460
9. Teachings of Buddhism 468

§ 3. Basic principles and specificity
of Ancient Chinese law 471

Chapter VI. Political and legal doctrines
of Ancient India 477

§ 1. Major historical, cultural and civilizing
dimensions of ancient Indian society 477
1. Historical notes 477
2. Vedic philosophy 479
3. Brahmanism 483
4. Shramanism 484
5. Bhagavadgitta 487
6. Schools of Indian philosophy 488
7. Hinduism 502

§ 3. Main sources of socio-political
and legal views of ancient Indian society 504
1. Buddhism and power 504
2. Manu Laws 516
3. "Arthashastra” 519

§ 4. Main conceptual dimensions
the socio-political and legal thought
of Ancient India 527
1. Ancient Indian model of organization of society 527
2. Concepts of world order and organization
public relations 529
3. The concept of political power 539
4. Politics and morality, personality and society 544
5. Specifics of the ancient Indian law 545

Chapter VII. Politico-legal status
and views of Hunnish Empire 547

§ 1. Formation of the economy of Hunnish society
and its state system 547

§ 2. Hunnish structure of society and state 558

§ 3. Socio-political system and organization
of power in Hunnish Empire 561

§ 4. Great Migration of Peoples
and Hunnish substrate 567

Sources 569



Political and Legal Doctrines.
Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis.
Vol. 2. Ancient Europe. Greece. - Sofia, Ianus, 2006. – 452 pp.
Bulgarian
First Edition
Author: Ianko Nikolov Iankov
Editor: Nikolay Vladimirov Mihaylov
Dimensions: 70 х 100/16
Published by: IANUS Publishing Company
ISBN 954-8550-43-1 (Том 2)


Contents

§ 1. Cultural and social event state
and validation of Ancient Greece 5
§ 2. Religion of Ancient Greece 14
§ 3. Mythology of Ancient Greece 36
§ 4. Homer's epic 45
§ 5. Hesiod's epic 73
§ 6. Creativity of the Seven Sages 90
§ 7. Aesop 98
§ 8. Teognid 107
§ 9. Pisistrat 111
§ 10. Pythagoras 126
§ 11. Heraclitus 133
§ 12. Aeschylus 136
§ 13. Anaxagoras 154
§ 14. Hyperbole 158
§ 15. Sophocles 166
§ 16. Euripides 182
§ 17. Aristophanes 186
§ 18. Herodotus 194
§ 19. Sophists 202
§ 20. Democritus 208
§ 21. Socrates 218
§ 22. Chrittias 261
§ 23. Thucydides 274
§ 24. Lyssias 279
§ 25. Isocrates 287
§ 26. Xenophon 296
§ 27. Plato 310
§ 28. Diogenes of Synops 336
§ 29. Aristotle 340
§ 30. Alexander Macedonians 378
§ 31. Demosthenes 399
§ 32. Evgemer 404
§ 33. Epicurus 405
§ 34. Stoicism and skepticism 418
§ 35. Institute of ostracism 422
§ 36. Political role of masses 441
§ 37. The evolution of the outlook for freedom
and Political Violence in Ancient Greece 453
§ 38. Persianism in political life of Ancient Greece 463
§ 39.Complement: Political and Legal Ideas
of Ancient Thrace 469


Political and Legal Doctrines.
Basic Aspects of Political and Legal genesis
Vol. 3. Ancient Europe. Rome. – Sofia, Ianus, 2006. – 412 pp.
Bulgarian
First Edition
Author: Ianko Nikolov Iankov
Editor: Nikolay Vladimirov Mihaylov
Dimensions: 70 х 100/16
Published by: IANUS Publishing Company
ISBN 954-8550-44-х (Том 3)



Contents

§ 1. Origin and Development of Ancient Rome 5
§ 2. Religion and Mythology of Ancient Rome 27
§ 3. Character and historical significance of Roman culture
and socio-political phenomenon 32
§ 4. "First steps" of Roman culture 35
§ 5. Cato 44
§ 6. Quintus Ennius 50
§ 7. Cultural and political circle of Scipio 61
§ 8. Polybius 77
§ 9. Cicero 105
§ 10. Diodorus Siculus 129
§ 11. Julius Caesar 130
§ 12. Lucretius 141
§ 13. Guy Salustius Crisp 149
§ 14. Virgil 162
§ 15. Horace 183
§ 16. Strabo 204
§ 17. Livy 206
§ 18. Propertius 208
§ 19. Ovid 210
§ 20. Dionysius Halicarnatii 217
§ 21. Petronius 218
§ 22. Seneca the Elder 220
§ 23. Seneca Young 225
§ 24. Kvintilian 230
§ 25. Josephus 232
§ 26. Marcus Annaeus Onions 249
§ 27. Plutarch 254
§ 28. Epictetus 267
§ 29. Cornelius Tacitus 269
§ 30. Pliny the Younger 281
§ 31. Gaius Suetonius Trankvil 285
§ 32. Appian Alexandria 287
§ 33. Marcus Aurelius 290
§ 34. John the Baptist 300
§ 35. Jesus Christ and Christianity 308
§ 36. Aval Gellius 399
§ 37. Justin 401
§ 38. Tertullian 402
§ 39. Orig 404
§ 40. Plotinus 405
§ 41. Ammian Marcellin 407
§ 42. Flavius Claudius Julian 409
§ 43. Quintus Aurelius Sima 411
§ 44. Aurelius Augustine 413
§ 45. Olimpiodor Theban 417
§ 46. Paul Orozii 420
§ 47. Sext Aurelius Victor 423
§ 48. Acoustic nature of the ancient Roman
philosophical and political thought 425
§ 49. To the question of the ancient teachings
the best form of state structure 430
§ 50. To the question of the ancient doctrine of the ideal citizen 435
§ 51. To the question of the ancient doctrine of the ideal ruler 441
§ 52. Roman socio-political utopianism 451
§ 53. Sacred-political function of gladiatorship 460
§ 54. Roman empire and imperial power 466



Political and Legal Doctrines.
Basic Aspects of Political and Legal genesis
Vol. 4. Middle Ages,
Book 1. Orient. Byzantium. – Sofia, Ianus, 2007. – 230 pp.
Bulgarian
First Edition
Author: Ianko Nikolov Iankov
Editor: Nikolay Vladimirov Mihaylov
Dimensions: 70 х 100/16
Published by: IANUS Publishing Company
ISBN 978-954-8550-61-1


Contents

Chapter I. The question of the chronological limits
of the Middle Ages 5

Chapter II. Political and legal doctrines
of the Orient 12

§ 1. Orient and its "guidance" 12
1. Arab Orient before Islam 14
2. Mohammed before Hizhdra 16
3. Mohammed after Hizhdra 22
4. The Islamic world after Mohammed 26

§ 2. Sectarian and intellectual phenomena in Islam 33
1. Haridzhism 33
2. Shiism 34
3. Sufism 34
4. Philosophy 35
5. Science 36
6. Literature 36
7. Art 37

§ 3. Islamic Law 38
1. Religious nature of Islamic law 38
2. The political nature of Islamic law 44
3. Anthropological essence of Islamic Law 50
4. The legal nature of Islamic law 53
5. Subjects of Islamic law 68
6. Legal facts 70
7. The parameters of Islamic rule 73
8. Values protected by Islamic law 81
9. Crime and punishment in Islamic law 85
10. Some comparative aspects 90

§ 4. Rationalistic social and political
concepts of Oriental thinkers 96


Chapter III. Political and legal doctrines
of Byzantium 105

§ 1. Origin and Development of Byzantium 105
1. Reasons and conditions for the emergence
of the Byzantine Empire 105
2. Historical development of the Byzantine State 110
3. Historical development of Byzantine 119


§ 2. Nature of political and legal
ideas and exercises in Byzantium 122
1. Genesis and nature of Bysantism 122
2. Aryanism 154
3. Atanasism 157
4. Nestorianism 162
5. Monophysitism 163
6. Iconoclasm 164
7. John Filopon 165
8. Leontiy Byzantine 166
9. "Areopagitka” 166
10. Maximus the Confessor 168
11. John of Damascus 169
12. Paulikyanism 170
13. Patriarch Photios 171
14. Leo the Mathematician 179
15. Konstantin-Michael Psellos 179
16. Hesychasm 183
17. Calabrian Barlaam 184
18. Georg Chemist Plifon 184
19. Philosophical thought in Byzantium 185
20. Byzantine law 189
21. Eastern and Western Christianity 206


Political and Legal Doctrines.
Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis.
Vol. 5. Middle Ages. Book 2. Russia. – Sofia, Ianus, 2007. – 744 pp.
Bulgarian
First Edition
Author: Ianko Nikolov Iankov-Velyovski
Editor: Nikolay Vladimirov Mihaylov
Dimensions: 70 х 100/16
Published by: IANUS Publishing Company
ISBN 978-954-8550-62-8


Contents

Chapter IV. Political and legal doctrines
of Medieval Russia

§ 1. Nature of political and legal ideas
exercises in Kiev’s Russia 9
1. Introduction 9
2. The concept of "Russian land” 14
3. The concept of the divine origin
of prince's power 15
4. Hillarion of Kiev 20
5. Vladimir Monomach 26
6. Daniel Zatochnik 29

§ 2. Nature of political and legal ideas
and doctrines of Moscow’s Russia 31
1. Some highlights from historical and
political genesis of Moscow’s Russia 31
2. Kiev’s genesis of Moscow’s Russia 34
3. The Roman origin
of the Russian princes 36
4. Monks from behind Volga
for "selflessness" 38
5. Joseph Volotski 46
6. "The Russian Pravda” 49
7. Prince Ivan III 51
8. Pskov’s monk Filotei 54
9. Fedor Karpov 57
10. Zinoviy Otenski 59
11. Ivan S. Peresvetov 63
12. Ivan IV the Terrible 65
13. Andrei Kurbski 69
14. Ivan Timofeev 72
15. Protopop Avvakum 74
16. Latin and Greek "schools” 76
17. Afanasiy Ordin-Nashchokin 84
18. Metropolitan Stefan Yavorski 85
19. Archbishop Theophanes Prokopovich 86
20. Peter I the Great 92
21. Vasily N. Tatishchev 96
22. Ivan Pososhkov 99
23. Antiochus Kantemir 102
24. Condition of 1730 103
25. Catherine II 107
26. Michael Shcherbatov 113
27. Dmitry Golitsin 118
28. Semyon Desnitski 120
29. Nikolay I. Novikov 124
30. Alexander Radishchev 126
31. Vasily Malinovsky 131
32. Michael Speranski 131
33. Nikolay Karamzin 139
34. Emperor Alexander I 144
35. Decembrist revolt 150
36. Sergei Uvarov 157
37. Nikolay Turgenev 159
38. Gavril Batenkov 160
39. Peter Chaadaev 162
40. Alexander Pushkin 167
41. Orest Novitskiy 182
42. Alexander Homyakov 184
43. Ivan Kireevski 191
44. Nikolay Gogol 196
45. Constantine Kavelin 197
46. Timofey Granovski 202
47. Michael Pogodin 206
48. Stepan Shevairyov 210
49. Fedor Tyutchev 212
50. Constantine Nevolin 215
51. Vissarion Belinski 222
52. Alexander Herzen 225
53. Nikolay Ogaryov 228
54. Nikolay Stankevich 230
55. Pavel Annenkov 231
56. Mikhail Bakunin 232
57. Aksakov father and brothers 241
58. Constantine Kavelin 244
59. Mikhail Katkov 246
60. Yuri Samarium 247
61. Sergei Solovyov 248
62. Fyodor Dostoevsky 252
63. Michael Butashevich-Petrashevski 282
64. Apollon Grigoryev 283
65. Nikolay Danilevski 284
66. Pyotr Lavrov 296
67. Rostislav Фадеев 300
68. Alexander Stronin 300
69. Constantine Pobedonostsev 303
70. Boris Chicherin 304
71. Nicholay Strahov 317
72. Nikolay Chernyshevsky 318
73. Leo Tolstoy 329
74. Victor Kudryavtsev-Platonov 338
75. Konstantin Leontiev 342
76. Nikolay Nelidov 352
77. Nicholay Khlebnikov 356
78. Dmitry Pissarev 358
79. Basil Klyuchevski 359
80. Nikolay Petkov 360
81. Pyotr Kropotkin 364
82. Eugene de Roberti 371
83. Peter Tkachyov 376
84. Sergei Vittae 383
85. Nikolay Kareev 384
86. Maxim Kovalevski 391
87. Vladimir Solovyov 396
88. Nicholay Korkunov 405
89. Nikolay Morozov 407
90. Vasily Rozanov 411
91. George Plehanoff 412
92. Alexander Bashmakov 414
93. Robert Vipper 416
94. Act of 1861 repealing the law
of serfdom 420
95. Pyotr Stolypin 428
96. Sergei Trubetskoy 431
97. Yevgeny Trubetskoy 432
98. Lapo-Danilevski 436
99. Mikhail Tugan-Baranovski 437
100. Paul Novgorodtsev 439
101. Joseph Petkov 448
102. Lev Petrazhitski 450
103. Maxim Gorky 453
104. Bogdan Kistyakovski 455
105. Piotr Struve 460
106. Vladimir Lenin 464
107. Sergei Bulgakov 472
108. Alexander Bogdanov-Malinovsky 480
109. Victor Tchernov 484
110. Nikolay Berdyaev 487
111. Eugene Spektorski 496
112. Semyon Frank 497
113. Alexander Yashchenko 502
114. Gustav Shpetim 504
115. Nikolay Alexeyev 506
116. Joseph Stalin 508
117. Leon Trotsky 524
118. Peter Bitsilli 527
119. Alexander Sakketi 529
120. Lev Karsavin 532
121. Ivan Ilyin 534
122. Ivan Kinkel 543
123. Georgy Fedotov 544
124. Nikolay Timashyov 554
125. Pitirim Sorokin 558
126. Nikolay Ustryalov 567
127. Nikolay Trubetskoy 568
128. Ivan Solonevich 570
129. Nikolay Kondratiev 573
130. Aleskey Losev 577
131. George Florovski 585
132. Georges Gurvich 589
133. Nikita Khrushchev 592
134. Pyotr Savitski 596
135. Alexander Chizhevski 604
136. Vladimir Nabokov 605
137. Alexander Kozhev 607
138. Leonid Brezhnev 610
139. Pyotr Grigorenko 614
140. Yuri Andropov 616
141. Alexander Solzhenitsyn 617
142. Andrei Sakharov 634
143. Nikolay Poltoratski 637
144. Alexander Zinoviev 638
145. Igor Shafarevich 640
146. Roy Medvedev 642
147. Anatoly Butenko 644
148. Dmitri Volkogonov 646
149. Alexander Janov 647
150. Boris Yeltsin 648
151. Mikhail Gorbachev 651
152. Nikolay Hrenov 662
153. Vladimir Bukovsky 664
154. Vladimir Putin 667
155. Dmitry Medvedev 669
156. Slavophiles, Occidentalism
and Pan-Slavism 670
157. "Russian idea" 686
158. Eurasianism 707
159. Die-hard reactionary 712
160. Smenovehovstvo 715
161. Russian nihilism 716
152. Russian liberalism 719
163. Russian "Silver Age" 721
164. On the specifics of Russia's
political and legal culture 727
165. Socio-portrait touches to the image
of Soviet and post-Soviet man 733
Instead of conclusion:
"Third Rome", "Second Europe"
or "Third World" 736



Political and Legal Doctrines.
Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis.
Vol. 6. Middle Ages. Book 3. Western Europe. – Sofia, Ianus, 2007. – 477 pp.
Bulgarian
First Edition
Author: Ianko Nikolov Iankov-Velyovski
Editor: Nikolay Vladimirov Mihaylov
Dimensions: 70 х 100/16
Published by: IANUS Publishing Company
ISBN 978-954-8550-62-8


Contents

Chapter V. Political and legal doctrines
of Medieval Western Europe

§ 1. Of the patristic era 6
§ 2. Boethius 8
§ 3. Gregory Turkish 14
§ 4. Carolingian Renaissance 18
§ 5. Anselm of Canterbury 27
§ 6. Arnold of Brescia 29
§ 7. Pierre Abelard 32
§ 8. Bernard de Clairvaux 37
§ 9. Pierre Lombard 39
§ 10. John of Salisbury 40
§ 11. Franciscus Assiensis 43
§ 12. Berthold of Regensburg 47
§ 13. Henry de Bracton 55
§ 14. Roger Bacon 57
§ 15. Giovanni Bonaventura 61
§ 16. Thomas Aquinas 63
§ 17. Boetius Dacos 88
§ 18. Raimundus Lullius 89
§ 19. Siger de Brabant 90
§ 20. Jean de Paris 92
§ 21. Dante Alighieri 95
§ 22. Marsilius of Padua 108
§ 23. William Occam 112
§ 24. Petrarca 123
§ 25. Giovanni Boccaccio 130
§ 26. John Wycliffe 135
§ 27. Geoffrey Chaucer 143
§ 28. Jan Hus 144
§ 29. Tito Livio Frulovisi 154
§ 30. Nicholai de Cusa 160
§ 31. Leon Battista Alberti 163
§ 32. Lorenzo Valla 173
§ 33. Matteo Palmieri 177
§ 34. Joan of Arc 179
§ 35. Girolamo Savonarola 183
§ 36. Sebastian Brant 190
§ 37. Giovanni Pico della Mirandola 191
§ 38. Thomas Murner 192
§ 39. Desiderius Erasmus 193
§ 40. Niccolo Machiavelli 205
§ 41. Thomas Moore 221
§ 42. Francesco Gvichardini 228
§ 43. Martin Luther 229
§ 44. Francisco de Vitoria 239
§ 45. Ulrich von Huten 240
§ 46. Thomas Muntzer 242
§ 47. Queen Marguerite de Navarre 246
§ 48. Francois Rabelais 248
§ 49. Philip Melanchton 250
§ 50. Thomas Starkey 251
§ 51. Sebastian Frank 256
§ 52. Charles V Habsburg 257
§ 53. Michel Nostradamus 261
§ 54. Michel de L’Hopital 271
§ 55. Jean Calvin 271
§ 56. Antonio Francesco Doni 282
§ 57. François Autman 282
§ 58. Etienne de Laboesi 284
§ 59. Jean Bodin 287
§ 60. Michel de Montaigne 313
§ 61. Miguel de Cervantes 316
§ 62. Edward Coke 325
§ 63. Francis Bacon 327
§ 64. Christopher Marlowe 331
§ 65. William Shakespeare 335
§ 66. Tommazo Campanella 340
§ 67. Hugo Grotius 356
§ 68. Robert Filmer 385
§ 69. The fate of Roman law 386
§ 70. Inquisition 394
§ 71. The discovery of the New World 400
§ 72. University 402
§ 73. Science 407
§ 74. Chivalry 425
§ 75. God's court 429
§ 76. Gender vision of the Middle Ages 436
§ 77. Courtesy vassalage 442
§ 78. Humanism and the Renaissance 446
§ 79. Reformation 464



Political and Legal Doctrines.
Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis.
Vol. 7. The New Time. Book 1. – Sofia, Ianus, 2007. – 448 pp.
Bulgarian
First Edition
Author: Ianko Nikolov Iankov-Velyovski
Editor: Nikolay Vladimirov Mihaylov
Dimensions: 70 х 100/16
Published by: IANUS Publishing Company
ISBN 978-954-8550-65-9

Contents

§ 1. The question of content and chronological
parameters of modern times 7
§ 2. Jakob Böhm 7
§ 3. John Smith 10
§ 4. New English colonial theocracy 13
§ 5. Cardinal Richelieu 32
§ 6. Thomas Hobbes 38
§ 7. Pierre Gassendi 51
§ 8. Rene Descartes 54
§ 9. Oliver Cromwell 59
§ 10. Pierre Korney 62
§ 11. John Milton 67
§ 12. Gerard Uinstenli 78
§ 13. James Harrington 79
§ 14. Antoine Arnault 98
§ 15. François Laroshfuko 100
§ 16. John Lilbarn 107
§ 17. Jean-Baptiste Colbert 116
§ 18. Savinen Cyrano de Bergerac 118
§ 19. La Fontaine 120
§ 20. Jean Baptiste Moliere 123
§ 21. Blaise Pascal 135
§ 22. Benedict Baruch Spinoza 138
§ 23. John Locke 150
§ 24. Samuel von Pufendorf 165
§ 25. Louis XIV 169
§ 26. Racine 176
§ 27. Isaac Newton 178
§ 28. Jean de Labryuier 184
§ 29. Francois de Bobbins 190
§ 30. Gottfried Leibniz 191
§ 31. Pierre Bale 196
§ 32. Tomaziy Christians 198
§ 33. Daniel Defoe 205
§ 34. Jean Meli 210
§ 35. Jonathan Swift 212
§ 36. Dzhambatista Vico 217
§ 37. Bernard Mandevil 226
§ 38. John Toland 227
§ 39. Anthony Sheftsbari 230
§ 40. Richard Styles 231
§ 41. Kristiyan Wolf 234
§ 42. George Berkeley 241
§ 43. Charles Louis Montesquieu 244
§ 44. Francis Hatchesan 262
§ 45. Voltaire Fransois 264
§ 46. Benjamin Franklin 273
§ 47. Gabriel Bono de Mabli 275
§ 48. Julien Ofre Lametri 279
§ 49. Thomas Reid 283
§ 50. David Hume 285
§ 51. Jean-Jacques Rousseau 294
§ 52. Denis Diderot 301
§ 53. Helvetius Claude-Adrien 308
§ 54. Leger-Marie Deschamps 310
§ 55. Jean D'Alamber 313
§ 56. Adam Ferguson 316
§ 57. Paul Henri Holbah 319
§ 58. Adam Smith 322
§ 59. Immanuel Kant 328
§ 60. Anne Robert Jacques Turgo 342
§ 61. Edmund Burke 345
§ 62. Ephraim Lessing Gothold 352
§ 63. Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais 357
§ 64. George Washington 361
§ 65. William Pallet 366
§ 66. Edward Gibbon 370
§ 67. Thomas Paine 372
§ 68. Cesare Bekaria 378
§ 69. Marquis de Sade 380
§ 70. Jean-Paul Marat 388
§ 71. Jean-Antoine Nicholas Condorcet 390
§ 72. Thomas Jefferson 393
§ 73. Alexander Kaliostro 396
§ 74. Johann Gottfried Herder 401
§ 75. Jeremy Bentham 408
§ 76. Emmanuel-Joseph Abbot Sieyes 417
§ 77. Honore Gabriel Riqueti de Mirabeau 423
§ 78. Johann Wolfgang Goethe 425
§ 79. James Madison 433



Political and Legal Doctrines.
Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis.
Vol. 8. The New Time. Book 2. –Sofia, Ianus, 2009. – 421 pp.
Bulgarian
First Edition
Author: Ianko Nikolov Iankov-Velyovski
Editor: Nikolay Vladimirov Mihaylov
Dimensions: 70 х 100/16
Published by: IANUS Publishing Company
ISBN 978-954-8550-66-6


Contents

§ 80. Joseph de Maistre (1753/1754-1821) 10
§ 81. Dugald Stewart (1753-1828) 22
§ 82. Talleyrand-Perigord (1754-1838) 27
§ 83. Georg Forster (1754-1794) 28
§ 84. Louis Gabriel de Bonald (1754-1840) 34
§ 85. Couthon Georges (1755-1794) 38
§ 86. Marie-Antoinette (1755-1793) 39
§ 87. William Godwin (1756-1836) 41
§ 88. Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) 47
§ 89. Pierre Cabanis (1757-1808) 49
§ 90. Maximilien Robespierre (1758-1794) 52
§ 91. Monroe (1758-1831) 56
§ 92. Jean-Joseph Mounier (1758-1806) 58
§ 93. Joseph Fouche(1759-1820) 63
§ 94. Friedrich Schiller (1759-1805) 67
§ 95. Georges Jacques Danton (1759-1794) 91
§ 96. Friedrich August Wolf (1759 - 1824) 93
§ 97. Saint-Simon (1760-1825) 96
§ 98. Gracchus Babeuf (1760-1797) 100
§ 99. Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) 102
§ 100. Andre Chenier (1762-1794) 108
§ 101. Gustav von Hugo (1764-1844) 110
§ 102. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) 111
§ 103. Madame de Stael (1766-1817) 115
§ 104. Maine de Biran (1766-1824) 118
§ 105. Benjamin Constant (1767-1830) 122
§ 106. Wilhelm Humboldt (1767-1835) 128
§ 107. Louis Antoine Saint-Just (1767-1794) 134
§ 108. Schlegel brothers(1767-1845) 141
§ 109. Friedrich Shleiermacher (1768-1834) 143
§ 110. François Chateaubriand (1768-1848) 147
§ 111. Napoleon I Bonaparte (1769-1821) 150
§ 112. G. W. F. Hegel (1770-1831) 157
§ 113. Robert Owen (1771-1858) 169
§ 114. David Ricardo (1772-1823) 172
§ 115. Charles Fourier (1772-1837) 176
§ 116. Anton Thibaut (1772-1840) 180
§ 117. Jean Sismondi (1773-1842) 183
§ 118. Metternich (1773-1859) 187
§ 119. Fridrich Schelling (1775-1854) 190
§ 120. Rottek Karl von (1775-1840) 194
§ 121. Barthold Niebuhr (1776-1831) 196
§122. George Bramall (1778-1840) 198
§123. Friеdrich Carl von Savigny (1779-1861) 200
§ 124. Karl Ritter (1779-1859) 202
§ 125. Carl von Clausewitz (1780-1830) 204
§ 126. Karl Krause (1781-1832) 205
§ 127. Robert de Lamennais (1782-1854) 207
§ 128. Stendhal (1783-1842) 210
§ 129. François Guizot (1787-1874) 214
§ 130. Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) 227
§ 131. Etienne Cabet (1788-1856) 239
§ 132. James Fenimore Cooper (1789-1851) 243
§ 133. The French Revolution 247
§ 134. John Austin (1790-1859) 304
§ 135. de Lamartine (1790-1869) 307
§ 136. Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) 312
§ 137. Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) 320
§ 138. Auguste Compte (1798-1857) 328
§ 139. John Gray (1798-1850) 339
§ 140. Jules Michelet (1798-1874) 340
§ 141. Johann Torbek (1798-1872) 345
§ 142. Adam Mickiewicz (1798-1855) 346
§ 143. Georg Puchta (1798-1846) 349
§ 144. Honore de Balzac (1799-1850) 351
§ 145. Thomas Makoley (1800-1859) 356
§ 146. Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) 358
§ 147. Hippolyte Carnot (1801 - 1888) 360
§ 148. Victor Hugo (1802-1885) 362
§ 149. Theodor Dezami (1803-1850) 372
§ 150. Ludwig Foyerbah (1804-1872) 373
§ 151. Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881) 376
§ 152. Louis Auguste Blanqui (1805-1881) 379
§ 153. Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) 381
§ 154. Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) 387
§ 155. Johann Karl Rodbertus (1805-1875) 392
§ 156. Joseph Smith (1805-1844) 394
§ 157. Max Shtirner (1806-1856) 395
§ 158. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) 402
§ 159. Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882) 409
§ 160. Johann Droyzen (1808-1884) 411
§ 161. Wilhelm Veytling (1808-1871) 413
§ 162. Napoleon III Bonaparte (1808-1873) 414
§ 163. Pierre-Joseph Prudon (1809-1865) 426
§ 164. Charles Darwin (1809-1882) 435

BIBLIOGRAPHY (List of books) of Ianko N. Iankov-Velyovski

BIBLIOGRAPHY

(List of books)

of Ianko N. Iankov-Velyovski


01. Iankov Ianko (Yankov Yanko), Prognostics. Theoretical and Methodological Problems. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 1993. - 288 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-799-178-7;

02. Iankov Ianko (Yankov Yanko), Document for Identity. Political Documentary. Vol. 1. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 1994. - 640 pp. (Gross Dimensions: 70 x 100/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-02-4;

03. Iankov Ianko (Yankov Yanko), Document for identity. Political Documentary. Vol. 2. Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 1995. - 576 pp. (Gross Dimensions: 70 x 100/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-04-0;

04. Iankov Ianko (Yankov Yanko), Introduction to the Psychology of Law. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 1998. - 322 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-06-7;

05. Iankov Ianko, Psychology of Law. Vol. 1. Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2002. - 518 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-18-0 (Vol. 1);

06. Iankov Ianko, Document for identity. Political Documentary. Vol. 3. Bulgarian State Abdicates in Favour of the Red Mafia. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2002. - 576 рp. (Gross Dimensions: 70 x 100/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-07-5 (Vol. 3);

07. Iankov Ianko, Document for identity. Political Documentary. Vol. 4. Who Is the West Defending – Human Rights or Red Mafia. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2003. - 568 pр. (Gross Dimensions: 70 x 100/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-09-1 (Vol. 4);

08. Iankov Ianko, Document for identity. Political Documentary. Vol. 5, Who Is the West Defending – Human Rights or Red Mafia. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2003. - 546 pр. (Gross Dimensions: 70 x 100/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-20-2 (Vol. 5);

09. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of Mesopotamia. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 148 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16); ISBN 954-8550-24-5;

10. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of Ancient Egypt. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 94 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-25-3;

11. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of Ancient Iran. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 98 pр., (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-26-1;

12. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of Judea. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 126 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-27-х;

13. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of Ancient China. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 132 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-28-8;

14. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of Ancient India. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 94 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-29-6;

15. Iankov Ianko, Alphabetical Truths. Sparks of Wit, Nominated by Dungeon. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 352 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-11-3;

16. Iankov Ianko, The Euthanasia. Thanatological Aspects. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 76 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-32-6;

17. Iankov Ianko, The Death Penalty. Thanatological Aspects. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. -134 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-15-6;

18. Iankov Ianko, Introduction to Thanatology. Phenomenology of Life and Death. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 202 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-21-0;

19. Iankov Ianko, The Russian Terrorism. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 130 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-33-4;

20. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of Ancient Greece. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 532 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-30-х;

21. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of Ancient Rome. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 456 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-31-8;

22. Iankov Ianko, The Bulgarian Terrorism. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 176 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-34-2;

23. Iankov Ianko, Chronology of Most Notorious Terrorist Acts. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2004. - 150 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-35-0;

24. Iankov Ianko, Document for Identity. Political Documentary. Vol. 6. Who Is the West Defending – Human Rights or Red Mafia. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2005. - 526 pр. (Gross Dimensions: 70 x 100/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-22-9 (Vol. 6);

25. Iankov Ianko, Prognostics. Theoretical and Methodological Problems. (Second Edition). - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006, 444 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16 ) ISBN 954-8550-37-7;

26. Iankov Ianko, The Кilling. Thanatological Aspects. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 142 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 х 84/ 16) ISBN-10: 954-8550-54-7; ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-54-3;

27. Iankov Ianko, The Suicide. Thanatological Aspects. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 126 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 х 84/ 16) ISBN-10: 954-8550-53-9; ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-53-6;

28. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of the Medieval Orient. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 150 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 х 84/ 16) ISBN-10: 954-8550-50-4; ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-50-5;

29. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines of Bizantia. - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 166 pр. (Normal Dimensions: 60 х 84/ 16) ISBN-10: 954-8550-49-0; ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-49-9;

30. Iankov Ianko, The Political Killings. Book One. Who Killed Volodya Nakov. (Documentary). - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 150 pp. (Normal Dimensions: 60 х 84/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-10-5;

31. Iankov Ianko, The Bulgarian Terrorism. (Second Edition) - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 226 pp. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16) ISBN-10: 954-8550-51-2; ISBN-13:978-954-8550-51-2;

32. Iankov Ianko, The Secret Services and the Scientific Fellows in Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and Sofia University. (Political Documentary. Book One). - Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 144 pp. (Normal Dimensions: 60 х 84/ 16) ISBN-10: 954-8550-48-2; ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-48-2;

33. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines. Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis. Vol. 1. The Ancient East, – Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 486 pp. (Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-42-3 (Vol. 1);

34. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines. Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis. Vol. 2. Ancient Europe. Grece – Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 452 pp. (Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-42-3 (Vol. 2);

35. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines. Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis. Vol. 3. Ancient Europe. Rome – Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2006. - 412 pp. (Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16) ISBN 954-8550-42-3 (Vol. 3);

36. Iankov Ianko, The Bulgarian Terrorism. (Thrid Edition) - Sofia, Mirror Publishing Company, 2006. - 222 pp. (Normal Dimensions: 60 x 84/ 16);

37. Iankov Ianko, The Political Killings. Who Prevented Me from Killing the Vice President Yaroslav Radev and the Ex-Prime Minister Andrey Lukanov. (Documentary), Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007. - 156 pp. (Normal Dimensions: 60 х 84/ 16) ISBN-10: 954-8550-12-1 (Vol. 2); ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-12-3 (Vol. 2);

38. Iankov Ianko, Thanatology. A Science for Humanization of Life through Demystification of Death, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007. - 752 pp. (Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16), ISBN-10: 954-8550-36-9; ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-36-9;

39. Iankov Ianko, The Pandora’s Box. A Kaleidoscopic Vision on Terrorism, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007. - 630 pp. (Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16), ISBN-10: 954-8550-16-4; ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-16-1;

40. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines. Basic Aspects of Political and Legal genesis Vol. 4. Middle Ages, Book 1. Orient. Byzantium, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007. - 230 pp., (Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16), ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-61-1;

41. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines. Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis, Vol. 5. Book 2. Russia, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007, 744 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN 978-954-8550-62-8;

42. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines. Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis. Vol. 6. Middle Ages. Book 3. Western Europe. Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007, 478 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN 978-954-8550-63-5;

43. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines. Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis. Vol. 7.The New Time. Book 1, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007, 447 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN 978-954-8550-65-9;

44. Iankov Ianko, Science notes and fragments. (Parameters of psychotronic power and capacity to protect human nature), Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007, 470 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN 978-954-8550-69-7;

45. Iankov Ianko,Document for Identity. Political Documentary. Vol. 7, Conclusive Messages to the Mafia, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007, 546 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN-10: 954-8550-57-1, ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-57-4;

46. Iankov Ianko, Document for Identity. Political Documentary. Vol. 8, Conclusive Messages to the Mafia. Letters to European and World Institutions and Leaders, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007, 640 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN: 978-954-8550-58-1;

47. Iankov Ianko, Document for Identity. Political Documentary. Vol. 9. Letters to European and World Institutions and Leaders. Conclusive Messages to the Mafia, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007, 620 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN: 978-954-8550-60-4;

48. Iankov Ianko, The Legitimate Bases of Political Power in Bulgaria, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2007, 491 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN-10: 954-8550-14-8, ISBN-13: 978-954-8550-14-7;

49. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines. Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis. Vol. 8.The New Time. Book 2, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2008, 445 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN 978-954-8550-66-6;

50. Iankov Ianko, Articles. Studies. Notes, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2010, 421 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN: 978-954-8550-68-0;

51. Iankov Ianko, The Bulgarian Post-communist Genocide (Documentary), Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2010, 430 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN 978-954-8550-64-2;

52. Iankov Ianko, Political and Legal Doctrines. Basic Aspects of Political and Legal Genesis. Vol. 9.The New Time. Book 3, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2010, 400 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN 978-954-8550-67-3;

Preparing for printing:


53. Iankov Ianko, The Sofian Water and the Genocide on Sofian Citizens , Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2010, Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100 х 16, 200 pp., ISBN: 978-954-8550-82-6;

54. Iankov Ianko, Elites. Secret Services. Secret Power, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2011, 300 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100 х 16, ISBN: 978-954-8550-73-4;

55. Iankov Ianko, Political Mythology, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2012, 350 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN: 978-954-8550-39-0;

56. Iankov Ianko, Rhetoric, Ianus Publishing Company, 2013, 400 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN: 978-954-8550-70-3;

57. Iankov Ianko, Philosophy of Law, Sofia, Ianus Publishing Company, 2013, 500 pp., Gross Dimensions: 70 х 100/ 16, ISBN: 978-954-8550-59-8;

Ianko Iankov-Velyovski. Biography

Nikolay Mihaylov, Ianko Iankov. BioBibliography, Sofia, 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4
Biography

Ianko Nikolov Iankov-Velyovski was born on August 13, 1944 in Bulgaria, Montana District (at the time – Ferdinand, afterwards - Mihaylovgrad), in the village of Klisuritsa. His parents were ordinary villagers, who earned their living with agricultural labor; currently deceased.

According to the local historical data and folk legends, the village was found in 1688, when, after the Chiprovtsi National Freedom Movement Revolt was brought under the control of the Turkish authorities, one of its military leaders, Velyo Stoyov, together with his family left the burned village of Klisura (close to Chiprovtsi) and moved about 30 kilometers to the north, where in close proximity to another small mountain passage (in Bulgarian “klisura”) became the founder of the Velyovski (Velyovtsi) family, which continued his intensive revolutionary activities and the founder of the village of Klisuritsa (i.e. the Small Klisura)1. Ianko Iankov is an heir of this Velyovski family.2

He graduated his primary education in 1958 in his home village, and high school – in 1962 in the town of Montana (at the
________________________________________
1 Nameranski, N., The names of the villages in Berkovitsa, Mihaylovgrad and Lom Region, Sofia, 1991, p. 37, 131; Iankov, I., Identity document. Political documentation. - Sofia, Vol. 4, 2003, p. 109-110.

2Ianko Nikolov VELYOVSKI is the actual name of the person, who obtained citizenship as Ianko Nikolov IANKOV. Trying to detach children from parents, from families and kin and to attach them to the socialist “idea”, to force them forget their actual roots, in the 60’s, the Bulgarian Communist Party legally imposed elimination of the family name and replaced it with the name of the grandparent on the father’s side.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5
time – Mihaylovgrad). From the autumn of 1962 until the autumn of 1964, he served in the army as a radio operator with the rank „private”; afterwards his rank never changed.

In 1967, Ianko Iankov was accepted as a student in the University of Sofia, first in the Faculty of Slavic Studies, major Bulgarian Philology, and later, in December 1973 he graduated higher education in the Faculty of Law and was awarded a diploma in major Law (Lawyer, Master’s Degree in Law – LL.M.).

Since his student years, under the influence of the western democracy, of the anti-communist events in Czechoslovakia in 1968, and his general mental mood, he has formulated and undertaken partial practical testing of the thesis for eventual possibility of legal opposition to the totalitarian communist system by using supreme legal and ideological knowledge.

The first scientific works and publications of Ianko Iankov were made when he was a student in the third year, and in April 1974, he won a competition and began his scientific career as a researcher (Research Fellow) in the Institute of State and Legal Sciences with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and as a lecturer (Assistant Professor) in the Faculty of Law of the University of Sofia.

Although pretty cautiously, since the very 1975 he has started intensive practical implementation of his thesis for use of his supreme legal qualification for performing activity for protection of the violated individual rights of relatives and trusted friends (as a form of legal and political opposition to the communist system). The disclosed records of State Security show that at that time Ianko Iankov has already become a routine supervision subject for the secret services. In 1978, he broadened his scope of activities by including also protection of

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6
the violated rights of many other people, as a result of which the secret services’ supervision grew to special supervision.

In 1979-1980, Ianko Iankov started the formation of an unofficial and in its essence illegal organization (with no written statues and program but with orally agreed statutory and program principles), that aims at collecting and precisely analyzing different practical legal cases related to violation of human rights, which could later on be used as a form of active and mass official faultlessly legitimate and right-defending but political in its essence opposition to the communist system in socialist Bulgaria.

As a repressive answer of his completely legally irreproachable legal defense activity and under cruel violation of the Labor Code and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences Statutes, on March 18, 1982 he was illegally fired from his prestigious scientific and teaching work in the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences and in the University of Sofia. The disclosed records of State Security now show that his dismissal from work was assured by prior planned special operative action, undertaken by the Bulgarian branch of the KGB.

***

During the same year, Ianko Iankov started active contacts with representatives of a number of western embassies in Sofia (most of all the embassy of Great Britain, USA, France and Germany), to which he submitted a great number of official documents evidencing violation of the human rights in Bulgaria; consequently these submitted documents became subject of investigation of the Conference of Madrid and Stockholm regarding the human rights issues.

In May 1983, leaving the embassy of France, where he submitted more than 1500 pages of documentation, Ianko Iankov was arrested, but in two months he was released – both due to legal impossibility of proving any of the accusations

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7
against him (for terrorism against the embassy and for propaganda in the embassy against the state and political regime in Bulgaria) and due to (or more appropriately most of all) the effective diplomatic and propaganda intersession of several western countries rendered against the Bulgarian authorities.

During the summer of 1983, Ianko Iankov created in the town of Montana a special illegal group, which distributed a great amount of political leaflets against the authority from the autumn of 1983 until the autumn of 1984 under the immediate leadership of his brother Kamen Iankov. The disclosed records of State Security now show that the secret services have made over 150 (one hundred and fifty) prevention arrests and they have been engaged very intensively in tracing down the doers for a period of whole six years, without any result whatsoever.

It was not until the beginning of 1990, when as a member of the National Political Round Table and as a Congressman in the Great National Assembly Ianko Iankov gave publicity to the truth about the leaflets and soon afterwards by chemical-medical means his brother was killed by State Security, and since then the already democratic Bulgarian prosecution (headed by magistrates loyal to the communist “idea”) has been neglecting in total silence each of his many requests for investigation of the cause of his brother’s death.

In the beginning of March 1984, the home of Yanko Yankov in the village of Klisuritsa was visited by the political secretary of the US embassy Josef Keel (which, as far as I know, is the only visit of a western diplomat into private Bulgarian home for the 50 years of communist regime). Only a week later, with resolution dated March 15, 1984 of the Regional Court in the town of Mihaylovgrad (under APDH No.5 dated March 13, 1984), under serious violation of the official legal regulations, Ianko Iankov was arrested, deported and exiled to heavy forced physical labor in semi-secured

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8
concentration camp (called „Himik workers’ hostel”) in the region of the chemical plants in the town of Devnya, Varna District. He was taken there by an armed police escort and he not only did categorically refuse to work even for one minute but also, taking advantage of the comparatively free movement regime on the huge territory of the several plants, the available comparatively easy to access telephones and the argument that he will talk to his family in Sofia, he made a series of phone conversations with diplomats from the embassies of USA, France, and Germany.

On May 22, 1984, Ianko Iankov was arrested and the following three charges were brought against him: ►creation and leading of a subversive organization; ►conducting subversive propaganda against Bulgaria, the Soviet Union, and the socialist member states of the military bloc the “Warsaw Pact”; and ►instigating foreign countries to hostile actions against Bulgaria. Since his arrest, he raised the well-grounded thesis that he was innocent, whereas he even demonstratively stressed on the fact that he was „innocent due to lack of evidence” (not lack of deed).

***

On December 24, 1984, Ianko Iankov was sentenced to 12 years of prison under extremely strict regime, and in 1985, his sentence was “corrected” to 6 years and 6 months under the same regime. The disclosed records of the Bulgarian branch of KGB now show that the arrest, trial, and his special treatment in the prison were secured by conducting several strictly confidential operative actions, which code names were „The lousy guy”, „The wild guy”, „The vicious guy”, „The bullhead guy”, „Terrorist”, „Disobedient” and „Dragon”.

Only two weeks after the arrest of Ianko Iankov the US Department of State published a special report (read on June 06, 1984 on Free Europe Radio), wherein his name was

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
9
mentioned as an example of a Bulgarian citizen, deprived of his human rights, and soon later the rights-defending organization Amnesty International announced him for a person under its protection.

During the stay of Ianko Iankov in prison, the international rights-defending organizations Amnesty International and Helsinky Watch announced his for a political prisoner No. 1 of Bulgaria. The American Bar Association, Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and a number of other national and international rights-defending organizations undertook protests against the Bulgarian government regarding the illegal trial of Ianko Iankov. The Free Europe, the Voice of America and the BBC radios broadcasted many programs, dedicated to his activity and his inhuman treatment in prison. In March 1989, during the official work of the Congress, the President of the Socialist International Willi Brandt himself officially announced a number of facts both for his political and rights-defending activity and for the specific repression system that he was subject to in the Bulgarian prisons.

Moreover, a number of documents show that during implementation of a strictly confidential action of State Security Ianko Iankov was subjected to a special physical treatment system and chemical-pharmaceutical influence, for harming his extremely healthy organism and most of all breaking his will. This action, however, despite the partial success in the first purpose (multiple bone breaking and a tumor formation in his adrenal gland), concluded with absolutely full failure of the authorities regarding the second purpose: ►on the second and third year of his stay in the prison, it is properly stated in official documents that he is systematically violating the internal rules, systematically provoking the supervising security members and constitutes danger both for the prisoners and the warders; ►in the letter of characteristics, officially issued upon leaving of the prison, it is recorded that he is strong-

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10
willed, persistent in chasing his goals and all his actions are always purposeful.
Ianko Iankov stays in prison until his full serving of his term of imprisonment; due to the fact that under the adopted rules and practices two working days (as an shoemaker) equal three days, de facto he stays in prison 5 years, 7 months and 3 days of calendar time, and is released on October 31, 1989 (exactly ten days before the official date of the change of the political regime); along with the two months from his previous arrest and the two months and ten days of stay in the concentration camp his actual time of imprisonment was 5 (five) years, 11 (eleven) months and 13 (thirteen) days.

***

In December 1989, Ianko Iankov was pardoned with a law but he refused to accept the amnesty based on the thesis that „the legally sentenced may be pardoned but the illegally sentenced may not”, and submitted an official petition for a new court trial.

On March 30, 1990, the General Assembly of the Penal Bars of the Supreme Court issued a resolution, under which Ianko Iankov was declared fully innocently sentenced under full lack of the evidence required by the law, and his sentence was revoked. One of the very emblematic facts regarding his illegal sentencing was that fact that in the last and highest court bar, which declared his innocently sentenced, most of the judges who earlier, during the discussion of his case in the different previous instances, participated both in his declaring innocent and in his sentencing; these judges were never asked “In which case did they act according to their supreme conscience and in which they acted as cringing for a bowl of lentils mean and unscrupulous agents of the secret services?”.

Despite his many official written requests, up to now there is no one of the culprits punished for his illegal arrest,

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
11
sentencing and imprisonment; the only military prosecutor (colonel Nikolay Kolev), who dared undertake an investigation case against only a small part of the culprits, was soon after killed and the investigation case was suspended; the prosecutor, who suspended the case (colonel Nikolay Ganchev), was almost immediately promted to “general” and a little later he became owner of a luxurious hotel in a prestigious mountain resort..

Moreover, until now Ianko Iankov has not received even a cent as a compensation for the suffered material and moral damages and benefits missed. Furthermore:

а) on one hand all, who during the time of the classical communist regime participated in some way in the illegal repression of Ianko Iankov, almost right after were generously rewarded; their most generous reward however was exactly after the so-called „political changes”, when they reached not only the highest points in their professional hierarchy, but also stunning profiteering; according to his yet preliminary and not full calculations only regarding his illegal arrest, sentence, and imprisonment, more than 200 (two hundred) agents, trusted people and officers of State Security were engaged; some of the “most eminent” of them are now: eminent businessmen, democratic generals, members of the Supreme Court Council, supreme judges, constitution judges, judges in the international courts in Strasbourg and Hague, ministers and deputy ministers (including of justice and interior), chief prosecutor, eminent members of parliament, chairman of Parliament, famous diplomats.

b) on the other hand: exactly after the political changes Ianko Iankov: ►although already officially free, he acquired such actual status that gave him reasons to frequently declare that his pursuit today was much more sinister and perverted than before; and that his current status was much more ominous that the prison one: ► in particular, he stressed

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
12
on the fact that during the communist regime, his grandmother dies only three days after arrest, and his grandfather was buried five days after his first visit to his grandson in prison, and the death of both his grandparents was directly related to the repressions against him; in the context of a seemingly natural but in fact well planned by the criminal circles calendar regime, only for a few year, his brother, his father, and his mother died, whose death he well-groundedly defined as murder, committed by personally and institutionally the same forces, which earlier subject to repression mainly him and to a lesser degree – his relatives, exactly after the political “changes”; ►althoughs she has two prestigious higher education degrees (master in stomatology and master in pedagogy with specialty “Social work with children”), his wife Elka P. Iankova became unemployed almost immediately after in 1993 she married him, and all employers she addressed for work unambiguously showed her that the prestigious diplomas do not count due to her spouse choice; ► the professional realization of Ianko Iankov was firmly limited to an insignificant researcher in an academic institute and a host-lecturer in an university in the country, and he was demonstratively superseded in the scientific hierarchy by people, who have nothing in common with science; ► each his attempt to achieve any economic stability of his family was always followed by precise subjection to even more intensive mafia oppression and actual theft.

***

At the end of 1989 and the beginning of 1990, Ianko Iankov participated in the creation of the opposition in Bulgaria and in the activity of the so-called at the time National Political “Round Table”. His intensive try to create a right-radical opposition fraction and to oppose the agreement between the communist party and the false opposition created from its secret services leads to his exclusion in March 1990 from participation in the totally collaborationist “Round Table”; thus

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13

Ianko Iankov became the only, both in Bulgaria and in Eastern Europe, participant in the phenomenon “political round table”, who was excluded due to the radicalism of his claims for decommunization of society and the state apparatus.

Under Resolution dated May 15, 1991, of the Presidium of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, the dismissal of Ianko Iankov from his scientific work in the Institute of Law Sciences was announced illegal and politically repressive and his rights were recovered.

Nevertheless, for more than one year, the management of the Institute of State and Law Sciences with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, which consisted from secret agents and evident officers of State Security refused to give effect to this Resolution; as a result, after the political scandal and most of all after the diplomatic intervention, the Resolution was effectuated. Up until now, however, not only that none of the culprits for the illegal dismissal of Ianko Iankov was punished but also he has not received even a cent of compensation.

***

In 1990 and 1991, Ianko Iankov was a member of parliament in the Seventh Great National Assembly; from a constitutional point of view, this extremely rarely convoked Parliament had legal status of a Senate (Upper Parliament Chamber). There Ianko Iankov gave proof to and sustained the thesis for legal illegitimacy (due to the brutal violation of many constitutionally important legal regulations) of the Seventh Membership of Parliament, whereas he orally qualified this parliament membership as “Red mess” and defined as illegitimate all adopted acts, including the so-called “Constitution of June 12, 1991”, which he refused signing. The circumstance that although at that time the so-called “Constitution” was not signed by another 38 members of parliament also deserves special attention, today Ianko Iankov

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
14

is the only member of this parliament that did not engage in any way whatsoever with the “constitution” deed in question; all other members consequently as members of parliament in the following common Parliaments attested the sacred nature of this actually not signed by them “deed”; as a matter of fact, the political and judicial foresight of Ianko Iankov is unambiguously shown in the fact that exactly this „constitution deed” today is not only used as a flag and vindication of the cruel mafia plunder but it also represents an extremely serious “legal” hindrance for the European integration of Bulgaria.

On April 13, 1991, The Bulgarian National Television (29 San Stefano Str., Sofia 1504) broadcasted a special one-hour documentary (“This Is the Man”; director Rosen Elezov), dedicated to the activity of Ianko Iankov as a man and a politician.
On March 01, 1995, the Specialized Scientific Law Sciences Council with the Higher Attestation Commission (HAC) with the Council of Ministers elected Ianko Iankov for a Senior Research Associate Second Degree (Reader, Associate professor) in “Theory of the state and legislation. Political and legal sciences”.

Ianko Iankov is the founder and Chairman of: ⇒the Liberal Congress Party; ⇒the Union of Jurists Democrats in Bulgaria; ⇒The Base Institute for Research and Protection of the Human Rights; ⇒as well as several more other public organization.
From 1991 until 1995, Ianko Iankov issued the free newspaper “Liberal Congress” – printed body of the political party that he chaired.
Apart from his scientific research work in the Institute of Legal Sciences with the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Ianko Iankov was also engaged in university lecturing in the Faculty of Law of the University of Plovdiv, where he gave

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15

lectures on a number of scientific disciplines: ⇒Philosophy of Law; ⇒Psychology of Law; ⇒Psychology of Politics; ⇒Political and Legal Doctrines; ⇒Theory of Social Government (Political Management); ⇒Forecasting and Political Forecasting; ⇒Theory and Practice of Terrorism; ⇒Thanathology (philosophical, psychological and legal aspects of death).

On December 15, 1999, the French satellite television ARTE (2a rue de la Fonderie, F-67080 Strasbourg Cedex, journalist Lawent Cibien, 29 av. T. Gauche, 78016 Paris) broadcasted a special documentary, dedicated to the political and legal-defensive activity of Ianko Iankov.

For five days, at each round hour from November 26 to November 30, 2005, the Turkish News Satellite Television TGRT Haber (29 Ekim Cad. N 23, Yenibosna 34530 Istanbul, News Manager Dogan Senturk) broadcasted an exclusive interview with Ianko Iankov, dedicated on the topic about the role of the former soviet secret services (KGB) and their nowadays mafia transformation (the Red Mafia) in the current internal political and economical processes in Bulgaria.


Only several days later, performing a secret order, assigned by the management of the Bulgarian branch of the Red Mafia and the special services of the Ministry of Interior, on December 05, 2005 the Director of the Institute for legal sciences with BAS issued an order for the dismissal of Ianko Iankov, to be effected on the same day, about which he was notified only three days later, on December 08, 2005 (moreover with a slow mail latter).

It is curious that while the classical communist repressive services took care to make his first dismissal in 1982 look at least formally legitimate, the next dismissal was performed as a well thought and institutionally and personally secured brutal demonstration of anti-right force: ►the order

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16

was issued unilaterally by the Director and in full violation of the obligatory procedure legal rules, which categorically set forth that such resolutions may be passed only by the Scientific Council; ►furthermore the order was issued without any motives whatsoever, which is in full contradiction to the express requirement of the law for motivation of such acts.

With reference to this dismissal, I want to pay special attention to the following facts from the scenario of the modern theater of the absurd: а) The Director of the Institute for Legal Sciences with BAS, Tsvetana Kamenova is not only a daughter of a high-ranking officer and investigator in one of the most sinister departments of the communist State Security but also she herself is a high-ranking secret agent of the same special and politically repressive service (this service, by the way, is officially announced from the Bulgarian Parliament for criminal); b) Ts. Kamenova herself expressly, publicly, ostentatiously, and many times have stated that this dismissal was preliminary agreed with the diplomatic representatives of several western country residing in Bulgaria, whereas it will be acknowledged legitimate by all European political and court institutions; c) only several months before issuance of the order for this undoubtedly political and repressive dismissal, under proposal of the Bulgarian government Ts. Kamenova was elected by the General Meeting of the United Nations for a Judge in the International Court in Hague and was included in a court membership, which will discuss the cases for the crimes of the communist regime in Yugoslavia; d) nevertheless, let me once again specifically formulate probably the very naïve questions: „-Why is Ianko Iankov still subject of repression today?”; „-Why are his present hangmen personally and institutionally exactly the same as before?”; ”-Why today, using the encouragement of the West, the hangmen of Ianko Iankov avail of much more unlimited repressive rights and opportunities than before, when they only had the

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17
encouragement of Moscow?”; „-Why today, his hangmen are continuing to „administer justice” not only in Bulgaria but also in the European and world court institutions?”.

As a matter of fact, the content of the below-mentioned seven volumes „Identity document. Political Documentation” more than clearly show that Ianko Iankov has always determined the essence of the political changes in Bulgaria after 1989 as secured by the Great Powers criminal neocommunist mafia regime, and has extremely intensively addressed with official written statement the Bulgarian state institutions and most of the western diplomatic delegations in Sofia, as well as some of the European institutions, whereas he has presented official petitions for pursuit of penal responsibility of all criminals in all levels of the previous and current Bulgarian quasi-political and quasi-governmental system. In these seven large volumes Ianko Iankov precisely and even pedantically describes the facts and the legal interpretation of the great number of criminal encroachments on him personally, on members of his family and on his friends, as well as on other people; and the documented behavior of both the Bulgarian state authorities and the Western embassies unambiguously show that the criminals were guaranteed full legal irresponsibility.

The documents in question also show: ►that in response to his fully legally-justified demands for justice, he has always and systematically received all kinds of new completely illegal but precisely secured by the state institutions repressive-inquisitional strikes; and ►that in contrast to the time of socialism, today the West has legitimated as its democratic partners exactly these institutions and individuals that have been conducting and are still currently conducting all modern forms of inquisition treatment towards Yanko Yankov and the majority of the Bulgarian citizens.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18

Here I should stress on a very significant peculiarity of the behavior, statement, actions and attitude of Ianko Iankov to responsibility. To be a jurist means most of all to apply the maxim that man as such possesses free will and therefore he/she is personally responsible for his actions or failures to act. (A jurist, who accepts that responsibility may be not only personal but also collective is not a jurist but an inquisitor).

Ianko Iankov has always and on any occasion stresses on the fact that he was not looking for responsibility from the former members of the communist party (although the socialist propaganda purposefully, methodically and maliciously blamed him and did not stop to blame him of this “sin”) but only from those of them, who have committed particular crimes according to their own laws. The opposite would mean diluting the meaning of responsibility, which the former communists (present „socialists”, „member of the center-wing” and „member of the right-wing”) very successfully managed to impose in the Bulgarian public space, using their total power over all kinds of media, their full domination in the economic, cultural, and political life in the country, the deliberate marginalization of the Bulgarian population and turning it into ragamuffins.

The records of the manipulators of the Bulgarian, European, and world public opinion is very simple: about 2 000 000 (living and deceased) former members of the communist party plus about 1 500 000 (living and deceased) agents of the Bulgarian security services means that each second Bulgarian is “guilty”! Thus, every Bulgarian family appears to have averagely two “guilty” members... If everybody is guilty, then nobody is responsible–the concept “collective responsibility” is not present in legislation.

Furthermore, the psychological factor is also to be included – the spontaneous subconscious opposition of the “guilty”. Hidden behind this simple but faultlessly operative mechanism, the manipulators (the actual people guilty for the

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19

crimes) accumulate billions on account of the “guilty” and their families. Good-willed but unthoughtfully allowing to be used in favor of the above mechanisms, politicians, journalists, scientists, people of the cultural life and art multiply the thesis of collective guilt and assist the hangmen in accomplishing their misanthropic plan. Thereafter, the mechanisms of prescription will be effectuated, and the criminals will remain unpunished.
Ianko Iankov has been fighting all his life against this – unfortunately almost alone. Alone as the until recently slandered and now glorified by all the “left”, the “right”, and the “center”, Bulgarian politician – Stefan Stambolov. Like his great predecessor, Ianko Iankov was subject of constant attacks for slandering his personality and acts. With his precise scientific accuracy he distinguished, analyzed, and classified the perversions of the ordered slanders against him. Regarding this, I will quote an interview taken fifteen years ago, because what Ianko Iankov said then is still in full force today:

„I know that journalists frequently define me as a “very colorful personality”. I do not mind being called so, although I very well know that different people, led by different political motives and biases, saying that mean different things. During the last ten years, my strengths and weaknesses were totally un changed, but until recently, for them I was called a “criminal” and an “enemy of the state”. Today the qualification run from “colorful”, “exotic”, “strange”, “peculiar character” even to “affection”. In my opinion, these are qualifications of those people who do not obey the terror of widespread opinion, which (widespread opinion – ed.) in the totalitarian and post-totalitarian societies is wrong and misanthropic. On my part, I have always had scientifically grounded arguments for each of my disobedience. My professional specialization is political science; my evaluations with this respect have always been correct. As a matter of fact, the long-standing political one-colored situation in our country created the phenomenon

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20

„political daltonism, which is expressed mainly in the fact that people like me were (and still are!) assessed as “colorful”, as standing outside the main colors, which in fact, this is simply a matter of professionalism. Years ago, when everything looked absolutely hopeless, I stood against the communist system, I passed through its meat-mincer without being interested in the system servants’ appraisals of my behavior. Later, it became obvious that it was not me the criminal but the people who once announced me such. My actions as a leader of the opposition were taken by many people as the actions of an “enemy of the opposition”, but now it is more than clear that my professional evaluations were the most correct ones.”3

* * *

A peculiar group of facts related to the biography of Ianko Iankov also deserves special attention.

His sufficiently detailed documentary books show that both he personally and his closest relatives (father, mother, brother, grandfather, grandmother, wife, kids) and friends have not only been in the past but are still also (those who live) subject to an impressive number of repressive encroachments.

Both in the past and now, Ianko Iankov extremely intensively continues to insist before the relevant institutions and public circles on a pursuit of the strictest penal responsibility for each specific individual criminal doer, whose action was somehow related to the criminal activity of State Security.

Although the activity of State Security was official announced criminal with a special act of the Parliament, until now de facto and de jure none has been sentenced, and everything possible for not sentencing anyone in the near or far future is being done (until the unsparing laws of the natural human life duration take effect).
___________________________
3 Pirinsko Delo, Newspaper, dated July 25, 1991.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
21

His documentary books expose the attempts for elimination of his arguments in this direction (the interested criminal people and circles tried to discredit and compromise him by statements in the media that for a short period he was a “State Security agent”, and meanwhile doing anything possible not to allow anyone to the records, which they declared contained evidence about their insinuations).
Regarding this, the following is rather curious: ►in order to force the relevant institutions to grant access both personally to him and to the public to the documentation, which the manipulators said represented evidence, Ianko Iankov submitted a great number of official (notarized) Powers of Attorney of eminent Bulgarian journalists and experts; ►consequently, most of them personally stated to Ianko Iankov that they were threatened and that they were categorically persuaded to give up investigating the records of State Security; ►at the end only one of the authorized people (the expert in criminology B. T. Krastev) managed to force the Minister of Interior to grant access to the requested documentation {but only after this expert managed to survive after the organized in the Sofia subway attempt on his life and after he officially charged the Minister not only for this attempts but also for trying to conceal his own (of the Minister) criminal past in service of SS, and more specifically as an informer under the case in which Ianko Iankov was sentenced}; ►only several days after granting access to the documentation in question, the greatest expert in graphology D. G. Kostov made notary certification of his categorical conclusion that this documentation was fake; ►separately in other records, evidence (several of which the so-called “Plan for conducting operative action”) was found showing that the Scientific-Technical Department of State Security was assigned the development of a series of forgeries, which must have served for compromising Ianko Iankov; ►the investigative proceeding instigated thereof in the Military Prosecution was suspended with the

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
22

ridiculous argument for “expired prescription”; ►after three intensive interrogations as a witness, the expert-graphologist D. G. Kostov, who had never been ill so far, suddenly died of heart attack; ►in his official petition for investigating of the causes of this death, Ianko Iankov unambiguously stated that the case is a case of medication terrorism, committed against D. G. Kostov as a punitive operation for his expert opinion.

***
Ianko Iankov is married, father of three children, and author of scientific and fiction articles, reports of scientific conferences and symposia, televisions interviews and other media events, as well as the stated herein scientific and political-documentary books.

Moreover, his books have almost the same fate as the fate of their author:

1) The rich document enclosure to the first book show: ►that it was written back in 1976; ►that within the limits of the purely scientific community, it was accepted very warmly and that during the next year, all required at the time official scientific-expert and institutional resolutions for its printing were undertaken; ►that due to the ideological and political consideration of the communist authority and its secret services, this book was actually arrested not only a long time before the arrest of its author but also for a considerable time after his release from prison; and ►that the book was issued only after the political changes with personal funds of the author.

2) The rich document enclosure to the fourth and fifth book show that both due to lack of financial funds and due to the severe obstacles, precisely created by all possible administrative, political, and mafia factors, these books are issued with great difficulties, almost in conspiratorially and a long time after their actual writing;

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
23

3) I personally, as an editor of all books of Ianko Iankov testify: ►that to the lack of financial funds, his books were issued on a very limited and even symbolic total print; ►that this lack of financial funds was precisely secured by institutionally and personally the same factors and people, who earlier created ideological and political obstacles for the publication of his books; ►that in the purely scientific community, these books were welcomed warmly and for their content no word of critics was written or said; and ►that the only several people specialists in the relevant scientific field engaged in official written, extremely positive and even strongly laudatory quotes and reviews of these books.

4) As a matter of fact, the opinion of these specialists are worth mentioning:

а) in the official review, the doctor of historical sciences Prof. Petar Petrov stressed on the fact that: ►as an author Ianko Iankov showed notable erudition and knowledge of the works of his predecessors-authors; ►he is not only extremely correct in presenting other people’s opinion but also always taking side, giving grounds to and defending his own position; ►the profound scientific character of his works did not prevent the author from narrating vividly and fascinatingly, clearly and comprehensibly; ►considering specifically „Political and legal doctrines of Ancient Greece” and „Political and legal doctrines of Ancient Rome”, he expressly stresses on the first complete works of this kind in the Bulgarian literature; ►analyzing the rest of the works regarding the political and legal doctrines in Antiquity, one can reach the conclusion that with these books Ianko Iankov becomes the only Bulgarian researcher-jurist, who in such thoroughness presented to the reader an extremely interesting filed of problems, and that the scientific contributions and the cognitive nature of these books eloquently speak about the great erudition of their author; ►both books in psychology of law are works with high scientific qualities, and the author is

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
24

a pioneer in Bulgaria in this field; ►analyzing the books of Ianko Iankov in terms of the thanatological studies, one can definitely say that here the author is also a pioneer in Bulgaria.

b) in an official review, the doctor of legal sciences Prof. Lachezar Dachev states that: ►Ianko Iankov is the first contemporary Bulgarian researcher-jurist, who studies the problems of psychology of law and his both books in this field represent considerable scientific contribution because the thesis that he enunciates is fundamentally different from the theses already substantiated by the other authors; ►the works of Ianko Iankov regarding the political and legal doctrines of Antiquity are a high scientific contribution even with their very appearing because such studies in Bulgaria have never been done; ►considerable scientific contribution is also the successful application of the historical and culturological approach to the study of the ancient Eastern societies; ►using this approach to the study of ancient Eastern societies Ianko Iankov has actually prepared and tested his model for analysis of the political ideas, which consequently he developed to a new, more thorough level and applied for his studies of the political thought of Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome; ►the study of the political thought of Ancient Greece that Ianko Iankov conducted is the first in Bulgaria thorough study and even only this fact is of contribution nature; ►not only the scales of the exposition is contributive but also the fundamental significance of the problems, discussed by the author; ► the fact that while the few Bulgarian authors, who worked on the study of political thought, permanently addressed only the origin that discusses the political thought as ideology, Ianko Iankov is the only one, who demonstrated categorical disagreement with this limited approach and he studied the political thought mainly as theory, and meanwhile he beneficially broadened the very ideological approach, is also contributive; ►Ianko Iankov is searching for an explanation of the political ideas in the context of culture and defines them as a social-cultural phenomena; he assumes that the

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
25

relation “thinking-action” is with a two-way nature and based on this he defines his own specific method of study; thus, on one hand setting the relation “lifestyle (materiality) – religion (mythology) – mentality of the traditional society”, Iankov achieved a culturological explanation of the political ideas; but on the other hand he connected and explained the meaning of the political ideas with the relation “thinking – political thinking – political behavior”, whereas the two lines of analysis are related and skillfully combined; even at times, the reader loses orientation about them but the effect is very good: the reader is “absorbed” in the reproduced historical reality and clearly understands the logics of the political thinking of the world of that time, reflected in political ideas, and this is the next indisputable contribution of the study.

c) In an official review, the doctor of legal sciences Prof. Mihaylina Mihaylova stresses on the fact that: ►in his books, specific for their impressive volume and content of high scientific value, Ianko Iankov gives new trends in the legal science and shows impressive philosophical and scientific erudition; ►although the discipline to which the book “Political and legal doctrines in Ancient Greece” is referred to long ago has its scientific status and prestige (whereas all looks already said, collected, and systematized), Ianko Iankov has found a new standpoint, he has applied his own approach to the topic and achieved new scientific content; ►Ianko Iankov is modern in all his works; especially indicative example in terms of this are his studies in Psychology of Law, in which he demonstrated overcoming and outgrowing of all authors, who wrote on this topic before him; ►the capacity of Ianko Iankov as a theorist with modern and perspective thought is lavishly displayed in his works in Thantology; ►his study of the problems of euthanasia and the right of death is the first one in the Bulgarian legal science in this field, and everything written by the author on this matter is in full his contribution to the Bulgarian legal science; ►Ianko Iankov is copious in his scientific works; courageous

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
26

and original as a thinker; innovator in science and in teaching; pioneer in several trends of the legal science; remarkable erudite both in philosophy and in each separate private science concerning the law; precise in the content and significant regarding his decisions; especially in his studies of the death penalty and euthanasia he demonstrated skills in performing a proficient legal interpretation; his high erudition has predestined also his affinity to the methodology, marking a priority in all his works.

d) In the officially recorded statement before a special forum of highly qualified jurists, the doctor of legal sciences Prof. Vladimir Petrov was categorical that: ►Ianko Iankov has always combined in himself the qualities of a citizen and a professor; thus he was before the political “change” on November 10, 1989, when he has the courage to express opinion and defend standpoints, and “when personally to me he has demonstrated what it means to be courageous and brave by defending me before instances, before which no one dared express doubt or suspicion”; ►”from his very first years of assistance professor Ianko Iankov has shown that he was a person who had no other life but the life dedicated to science; this trend in his behavior he continued to demonstrate until today – he was among the politicians, for whom everything showed that they will be on top of the Bulgarian politics because he was not only a leader of a party but also one of the few people, who were actually repressed but yet gave up on politics to dedicate himself to his real love - science.”

***

In my opinion, Nikolay Mihaylov, nevertheless, one both small and at the same time huge and even fateful specifying specially to the opinion of Prof. Dr. Vladimir Petrov is required.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
27

In two of his epistolary statements written on September 19, 1980 and January 08, 1981 (published in the appendix to his first book)43 Ianko Iankov stressed on the fact that:

►it was a public secret that “in Bulgaria, there are quite a lot of people, who pretend to be patriarchs in science, while actually they cannot and do not deserve to be even miserable sextons”;
►„in order to strengthen their situation, these pseudo-scientific workers form their likes”, “and judging as Procrustes, zealously create and maintain atmosphere, in which the audacious innovators are extremely unwanted and are subject to accusations of thousands “deadly sins””;
►”because the good-for-nothing are willing to do anything, they create such an atmosphere, which frequently, with no exaggeration, can be called “hell””;
►”we can’t hide the fact that the dark forces, which strive to turn the sincere love to science into prostitution with science, are too strong”;
►then, from the time of his release from prison in 1989 until now, Ianko Iankov has always said that “Bulgaria is run by exactly the same “dark forces””, and that “one of their main strategies is to turn the natural love of man to politics into prostitution with politics”.
The matter is in the fact:
►that as well as before, now, both in science and in politics in Bulgaria only the unnatural form of relations dominates in total, and that only the contextual (but not the organizational-institutional!) sphere of science is the one that responded with reciprocity to the great love of Ianko Iankov; and
►that both in the institutional sphere of science and in the institutional sphere of politics (but not in the contextual one!) Ianko Iankov was subject to constant and pronounced hostile attitude, created and maintained by the same “dark forces”, against which he has never given up fighting.
____________________________________________
4 Iankov Ianko, Prognostics. (Theoretical-methodological problems). – Sofia, Ianus, 1993, p.249-282.

* * *



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28

I constantly ask myself: „-Where did Ianko Iankov find strength for the extremely difficult struggle that he leads? How does he do it with such feeling of confidence and inexorability? Is there any secret force, any spring that keep him charged for his daily non-routine battles with routine, unscrupulous, economic and political powerful opponents?” I searched for the answer in his descent.

His parents are typical country workers, typical Bulgarian mother and father – those who would “scrape the dirt under their nails” to have their children get on their feet, become worthy people. The corns on their hand have long ago turned into hard sole-leather, cut by black enamel, which cannot be washed with any soap or detergent. Their faces are tanned from the constant touch with the sun on the field. If they are stooped, it is due to the constant bows before the earth-breeder (not anybody else!). That’s the way I saw and remembered Ianko’s parents, his mother Evtima and his father Nikola, ordinary people, utterly pragmatic, kind-hearted and good-natured until the moment you step on then – honorable people, worthy, hardworking, with strong sense of responsibility. These ordinary Bulgarians have formed a daily atmosphere, in which the boy from the small refugee village of Klisuritsa grew up and formed as a personality. To the journalists’ question:

“Where do you find strengths from to survive and go ahead?”, Ianko Iankov replied:

“I am certain that had I not been a countryman, I wouldn’t have endured. I am a countryman and gather strength from the land. I love ploughing, hoeing, mowing. The smell of newly ploughed soil and the newly cut hay hypnotizes me. Indisputably the communists knew that the earth can “give strength” and set the pattern for opposition in people and for many years they were destructing the relation of man with the earth, but they did not manage to do that with me.”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29

Surprised and disgraced are the people who tried to throw mud on and eliminate Ianko Iankov from politics, as well as to ignore his in science. He proved that he is a big personality not only as a politician, but also as a scientist, man, and citizen. Because he has this divine spark that is stronger than the demonic attempts of all dark forces. Because God has generously awarded him with the talent to love truth, justice, and knowledge.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
( The same text in French, German, and Bulgarian is available at http://iankov.com/dl/biobibliografia.pdf )

Вместо предговор
1. “Събирането на мъдри мисли не означава поумняване”. Тази мисъл бях прочел някъде още през есента на 1958 г., когато като ученик в осми клас (по онова време осми клас беше началният клас на гимназиалното образование) бях започнал да си записвам в една обемиста тетрадка различни, преди всичко хумористични по своето съдържание, кратки и стегнати изречения, както и различни вицове и анекдоти, съдържащи “богати мисли” и оказващи силно въздействие върху моето пробуждащо се и формиращо се мислене.
Когато после, през есента на 1961 г., като ученик в единадесети клас прецених, че вече станалите няколко обемисти тетрадки съдържат твърде много “баласт” (т.е. че първоначално впечатляващите ме “мисли и мъдрости” вече бяха загубили първоначалното си очарование и бяха престанали да ме впечатляват толкова силно), съдържанието на тетрадките отново бе сведено до една тетрадка.
Днес, вече като автор на немалко на брой научни книги, съм напълно категоричен, че именно тази “радикална критика”, изразяваща се на този етап единствено като литературно “редактиране” и логическо “синтезиране”, всъщност е било не само и не толкова моето първо приобщаване към “науката” и “правото”, които по-късно стават моя “професия”, но е било преди всичко моята първа и категорична крачка към онова, което в най-общ план се нарича Съдба или Fatum (Жребий, Орис, Предрешеност на индивидуалния жизнен път).
Сега съм абсолютно категоричен, че никога нямаше да съм този, който по-късно абсолютно винаги съм бил и който днес съм, ако през онази далечна есен на 1961 г., когато бях едва седемнадесетгодишен, не бях подходил по същество критически към онова, което в тогавашното писмено (литературно и научно) пространство бе не само последователно “лансирано”, но и изключително пристрастно “отбранявано” като неподлежаща на никакво съмнение “абсолютна мъдрост”.
Днес съм абсолютно категоричен, че наистина “поумняването” се изразява не в “събирането на мъдри мисли”, а в тяхното категорично поставяне в “критичен контекст”, в тяхното “редактиране” и “синтезиране”.
*
2. По-късно, в края на 60-те години, вече като студент първоначално във Филологическия, а после и в Юридическия факултет на Софийския университет констатирах, че този именно мой “подход” винаги неизменно предизвикваше не толкова “уважение”, колкото именно “респект” и “дистанцираност”.
А след предизвиканите именно от студентите размирни политически събития в Западна Европа, и най-вече след т. нар. “Пражка пролет” в Чехословакия през 1968 г. проумях, че дейността на т. нар. “студентски творчески и научни кръжоци” в Софийския университет всъщност е най-внимателно наблюдавана от службите на Държавна сигурност, и че всеки, който проявява някаква форма на самостоятелно, хумористично и по същество критическо мислене, вече е станал обект на специалното внимание на тези служби.
Тъй като превъзходно знаех и разбирах текста и съдържанието на прословутия по онова време чл. 108 от Наказателния кодекс, от този именно момент, така да се каже “изнесох в нелегалност” цялата си, вече отново станала доста обемиста, “събираческа” и “редакционна” дейност – тетрадките ми бяха поставени в специален, изработен от единия от вуйчовците ми заключващ се дървен сандък, обкован с тънко алуминиево фолио и поставен сред сеното в стопанската сграда в родното ми село.
От този именно момент започнах и абсолютно безпогрешно да разпознавам кой от колегите и познатите ми е искрен и чист, когато поемаше инициативата да говори нещо смислено, и кой преднамерено и нечистоплътно “опипва” параметрите на моята словоохотливост.
От разсекретените архиви на Държавна сигурност днес констатирам, че в това отношение не съм се заблуждавал нито за момент.
*
3. От разсекретените и предоставените ми (през 1998 г.) архивни материали на ДС документално установих, че (вероятно) първото проучване, направено за мен от Държавна сигурност, е било през май 1971 г., по което време съм бил студент в трети курс на Юридическия факултет в Софийския университет.
От този (самостоятелен) документ, за съжаление, не е видно по какъв повод е било извършено това проучване и в какъв “процедурен” механизъм е било включено, но от откъслечни текстове, съдържащи се в други материали, е видно, че по това време аз съм бил обект на т. нар. “оперативно разработване” като човек, притежаващ “огнестрелно оръжие - пистолет” и подготвящ се да извърши терористичен акт с него.
Днес, разбира се, за мен не е абсолютно никакъв проблем да имам каквито оръжия пожелая и в количество, каквото пожелая, но за онзи период това е било абсолютно пълен абсурд и сега съм категоричен, че служителите на ДС не само много добре са знаели абсурдността на тезата си, но и че самите те са я измислили, тъй като тя им е била необходима да встъпи в ролята на т. нар. “законен повод” за поставяне началото на систематичен и манипулативен интерес към мен.
Заслужава внимание, обаче, фактът, че точно по това време двама души, с които поддържах нещо като много добри приятелски взаимоотношения - Захари Малионов и Христо Савов – които бяха студенти-задочници и работеха като офицери в Окръжното управление на МВР в гр. Михайловград (днес гр. Монтана), изрично ме предупредиха, че срещу мен е образувано Дело за оперативна разработка (ДОР), целта на която е да бъде намерен повод и механизъм, чрез който като бъдещ юрист да бъда държан в зависимост от тайните служби.
Още по-любопитно е, че точно по онова време един мой братовчед, който беше виден комсомолски и комунистически функционер, наистина, без какъвто и да е конкретен или общ повод и с привидно “най-невинно” изражение на лицето ми предлагаше да ме снабди с пистолет и патрони – очевидно неговата (преднамерено съзнателна или ситуационно и глупаво приета) роля е била да обезпечи “доказателствената част” от стратегията на ДС; той, впрочем, по онова време ми направи и още много други провокации, в резултат на които се скарахме и после не си говорехме цели седем години. Така или иначе, тази операция остана безуспешна за службите.
*
4. От разсекретените и предоставените ми архивни материали на ДС документално установих, че: →по т. нар. “Предложение” от 13 септември 1976 г. на оперативния работник (ОР) от Трето отделение на Първи отдел старши-лейтенант Младен Апостолов Младенов (КД 862 Б); →на 02 октомври 1976 г. с подписа на началника на Първи отдел при Шесто управление на ДС полковник Петров; →е бил утвърден т. нар. “План относно провеждане на оперативно-технически мероприятия по изясняване дейността на обекта”; →и е било образувано т. нар. Дело за оперативна разработка (ДОР), което е регистрирано на 10 ноември 1976 г. под № 13304 с кодово наименование “Смешник”.
В т. нар. “Предложение” е записано, че “преди 1975 г. за Янков бил получен сигнал, че има пистолет и … възнамерявал чрез терористични действия да реши своите въпроси. В резултат на проведените оперативни мероприятия Янков бил сигнализиран. Наличието на пистолета не било установено и сигналът не бил изяснен.” После е добавено, че “на 12.VIII. 1975 г. въз основа на сведение, получено от агент “Страхил”, на Янков бе заведен сигнал, поради това, че пред агента е изявил намеренията си да извърши терористични действия”.
Накрая е записано следното: “Изхождайки от идейната му нестабилност, разложителните действия сред студентите от Юридическия факултет и от намеренията му да създаде противодържавна организация, обединяваща недоволни млади научни работници, с цел предотвратяване на подривната му дейност ПРЕДЛАГАМ на Янко Николов Янков от Института за правни науки при БАН да се заведе ДОР под псевдоним “Смешник”, с окраска “изграждане на противодържавна група и провеждане на противодържавна агитация и пропаганда.”.
В т. нар. “План относно провеждане на оперативно-технически мероприятия по изясняване дейността на обекта” в рамките на пет машинописни страници са записани доста любопитни неща, сред които в контекста на интересуващата ни тема изрично ще отбележим следното:
“ДОР “Смешник” с окраска “изграждане на противодържавна група и провеждане на противодържавна агитация и пропаганда” е заведено на Янко Николов Янков, роден на 13.VIII.1944 г. в с. Клисурица, окръг Михайловградски, безпартиен, научен сътрудник в Института за правни науки при БАН, живеещ в ж. к. “Сердика”, бл. 18, вх. Г.
От анализа на придобитите данни относно дейността на обекта могат да се направят следните основни изводи:
- Обектът провежда противодържавна агитация пред студентите от Юридическия факултет, използувайки за целта анекдоти, афоризми и легенди.
- В контактите си с млади научни работници провежда разговори, насочени към обединяване на недоволните от тях, с цел противопоставянето им срещу политиката на партията и организирането им в противодържавни групи.”
По-нататък в “Плана” е записано, че “за изясняване на така очертаните задачи, предлагам да се проведат следните агентурно-оперативни мероприятия”, и в рамките на 10 (десет) точки са описани 14 (четиринадесет) такива мероприятия, сред които под № 9 е записано следното: “С оглед изясняване характера на събираните от обекта анекдоти и афоризми … по местоживеене на обекта да бъде проведено “М-Г” . Срок 15. XII. 1977 г. Отг. Младенов”.
Самата оперативна разработка (ДОР “Смешник”, № 13304) е документирана в рамките на 192 (сто деветдесет и две) страници, в които са записани какви ли не неща - шестмесечно непрекъснато подслушване и запис на всички разговори (и сексуални звуци и шумове) у дома ми, подслушване на занятията ми със студентите, план за вербуване на колеги и приятели, агентурни донесения на агенти, и пр.
В тези страници са отразени и изключително упоритите опити на ДС да се добере до каквито и да са написани от мен листове, съдържащи афоризми, анекдоти и вицове. Накрая, след изключително обстоен анализ на безнадеждно безуспешно извършените строго секретни оперативни мероприятия, на 23 декември 1977 г. началника на Първо отделение при Първи отдел на Шесто управление на ДС майор Б. Ангелов (КД 2629) е написал т. нар. “Предложение за прекратяване на ДОР “Смешник””.
*
5. От разсекретените и предоставените ми архивни материали на ДС, обособени в две други строго секретни оперативни разработки – т. нар. Дело № 21441, известно още и като ДОР “Дракон”, както и Дело № 24491, известно още и като ЛДОР “Твърдоглавия”, документално установих, че търсенето на папките ми с афоризми, вицове и анекдоти не е спирало нито за миг; от тези материали е видно, че в това търсене са били включени доста много мъже и жени, получили задачата да придобият статуса на хора, на които имам доверие и които да намерят благовиден повод да проникнат у дома ми, да узнаят къде съхранявам тези папки и да уведомят за това службите, за да могат те след това официално да ги изземат като доказателства за престъпната ми дейност. Впрочем, и днес ми е трудно да изчисля колко точно бяха фантастичните красавици, които бяха изпращани от ДС, за да минат през леглото ми и във връзка с това да узнаят къде крия “инкриминираните материали”.
*
6. През есента на 1983 г. вече ми беше пределно ясно, че в най-скоро време ще бъда арестуван и съден за противодържавна агитация и пропаганда, както и за създаване на противодържавна организация, извършваща такава пропаганда. Много добре знаех, че единствените “доказателства”, които могат да бъдат използувани против мен, са изключително многобройните мои официални жалби и изложения до най-различни български държавни инстанции и обществени организации, както и до няколко западноевропейски посолства. Тъй като съдържанието на тези изложения бе писано от мен изключително прецизно, много добре знаех, че строго погледнато, то не е и не може да бъде “годен за осъдително решение доказателствен материал”. В същото време, разбира се, ми беше пределно ясно и това, че този факт не е и не може да бъде каквато и да е съществена пречка за службите на ДС нито да ме арестуват, нито да ме осъдят.
Много добре ми беше ясно и това, че броят на т. нар. “еднородни престъпления” и наложените за тях наказания нямат никакво значение за т. нар. съвкупна кумулативна присъда, т. е. че дори и да ми бъдат наложени сто присъди по пет години, крайната съвкупна кумулативна присъда ще бъде пак именно пет години, и само като крайно изключение - седем години и половина. И тъй като подозирах, че братовчед ми (същият този, за когото споменах по-горе – казва се Цеко Кръстев Цеков) работи за службите и изпълнява специални оперативни задачи, реших да си направя експеримент.
Един ден в началото на месец март 1984 г., под предлог че заминавам за София, където има вероятност да ме арестуват и да намерят у мен картончетата със записаните върху тях политически вицове и анекдоти, аз го помолих да му дам тези картончета за временно и изключително кратко съхранение – само за няколко часа, докато той ги занесе у дома и ги даде на майка ми, която да ги скрие. Той най-тържествено обеща, че само след три-четири часа картончетата ще бъдат дадени на майка ми (която е сестра на неговата майка).
От София се върнах в Михайловград след два дни. Оказа се, че той все още не ги е дал на майка ми. Поисках да ми ги даде на мен и той ентусиазирано и щедро обеща да го направи “само след един-два часа”. Не го направи. На другия ден той отново обеща същото и отново не го направи. После няколко дни се криеше, за да не го намеря и да не му искам картончетата. После пак обеща, че ще ми ги даде “само след половин час”, и пак не ми ги даде. После започна да ме подиграва за това, че съм “много страхлив” и ме е страх да застана “лице в лице” срещу Държавна сигурност, поради което именно, вместо да им хвърля предизвикателно картончетата в лицето, да им се надсмея и да ги предизвикам, аз се страхувам те да не ги намерят.
След още няколко дни из Михайловград се разчу, че офицери от ДС били направили обиск и претърсване у дома на Цеко Цеков, и че единственото укоримо и престъпно нещо, което са успели да намерят при него, са били именно моите картончета с вицове и анекдоти.
Така, във връзка с този именно “факт”, беше пуснат и масово разпространен и специалният аргумент, че аз не заслужавам хората да ми имат доверие, тъй като съм крайно непредпазлив и поставям под неоправдана опасност хората, които ми вярват и които с риск за себе си ми правят услугата, като съхраняват мои опасни противодържавни материали.
*
7. Наскоро след това бях арестуван. Бяха арестувани още 11 (единадесет) души, а повече от 70 (седемдесет) бяха разпитвани като свидетели с тенденцията да бъдат трансформирани като обвиняеми. Всички отричаха каквито и да са връзки и взаимоотношения с мен, категорично отказваха да се признаят за виновни и казваха, че нямат абсолютно никаква представа за каквато и да е моя виновна дейност. И в крайна сметка бяха освободени.
Единствено братовчед ми Цеко К. Цеков с най-голяма охота се признаваше за виновен във всичко, при което неизменно казваше, че осъществената от него противодържавна дейност е била извършена поради това, че лекомислено е допуснал да изпадне под моето “вредно вражеско идеологическо влияние”.
Първоначално на мен ми дадоха 12 (дванадесет) години, а на него – 3 (три); после моята присъда бе установена на 6 г. и 6 м. (шест години и половина), а на него – на 2 (две) години. В крайна сметка той остана в затвора при изключително лек и така да се каже “шоу режим” само една година и няколко месеци (и после, още по времето на Т. Живков той, окичен с лаврите на “герой от съпротивата”, замина да живее в Америка, където е и днес). А аз останах при изключително строг и кошмарен затворнически режим цели шест години, както и после, при не по-малко кошмарния режим на “демокрацията”, осъществяван от моите предишни палачи, които Западът легитимира като свои “демократични партньори”.
*
8. Картончетата с вицовете и анекдотите, които Цеко Цеков очевидно изключително охотно, целенасочено и предумишлено бе предоставил на Държавна сигурност, бяха приложени като т. нар. “доказателствен материал” и се намират на стр. 103-116 в Том 4 на Следствено дело № 206 по описа на Главно следствено управление на ДС за 1984 г., което дело е част от материалите по Наказателно общ характер дело (НОХД) № 30-СА (Специален архив) от 1984 г. по описа на Софийския градски съд.
Тъй като в Наказателния кодекс все пак изрично се съдържа формалното изискване да бъде доказано т. нар. “разпространение” на “клеветническите антидържавни твърдения, съдържащи се във вицовете и анекдотите”, това разпространение бе “доказано” единствено чрез “самопризнанията” на братовчед ми Цеко Цеков.
По никакъв друг начин ДС не можа да докаже каквото и да е разпространение. Каквото, несъмнено е имало, но никой от 80-те (осемдесетте) души, разпитани от ДС не бе признал това. При това за мен е особено важен фактът, че тези вицове и анекдоти бях разпространявал както устно, така и писмено изключително интензивно сред кого ли не, и че после всички категорично отричаха пред следователите да са чували от мен каквото и да е в това отношение.
Така, на стр. 8 от т. нар. “Обвинителен акт” изрично и недвусмислено е записано, че “обвиняемият Янков” е “доказано виновен” за това, че “през месец март 1984 г. е предал на обвиняемия Цеков картончета с вицове и анекдоти, написани на пишеща машина, в които се съдържат клеветнически твърдения по отношение на социалистическата действителност в нашата страна, СССР, ЧССР, по отношение на партийни и държавни ръководители”. (л. 103, Том 4).
В т. нар. “Мотиви” към “Присъда” № 29 от 24 декември 1984 г., на стр. 6-7 е записано следното: “През целия посочен период подсъдимият Янков при всички случаи записвал на картончета вицове и анекдоти, засягащи както нашата действителност, така и социалистическата действителност в СССР, ЧССР и по отношение на държавни и партийни дейци. През м. март 1984 г. той предал същите на подсъдимия Цеков, който ги запазил у дома си и при направен обиск у дома му били иззети (Том 4, стр. 103). Видно от тяхното съдържание, подсъдимия е разпространявал клеветнически твърдения по отношение действителността в СССР и ЧССР. (…) Вярно е, че в това отношение и доказателствата са оскъдни, тъй като разпитаните свидетели се страхуват да признаят, че са слушали такива (вицове и анекдоти)”.
Така, въз основа на тези именно “доказателства”, е обосновано и съдържанието на втория абзац от осъдителната част на Присъдата, където се казва, че съдът “признава за виновен подсъдимия Янко Николов Янков” в това, че “с цел да създаде затруднения на властта в СССР и ЧССР, в устна и писмена форма е разпространявал клеветнически твърдения, засягащи държавния и обществения строй в СССР и ЧССР, поради което и на основание чл. 113, във връзка с чл. 108 и чл. 26, ал. I и чл. 54 от НК го осъжда на ЧЕТИРИ ГОДИНИ лишаване от свобода”.
Разбира се, въпросът за клеветническите твърдения, съдържащи се в “разпространените” от мен вицове и анекдоти е бил предмет на специалното разглеждане и от т. нар. надзорна инстанция. Така, на стр. 4 в “Решение № 11 от 26 февруари 1985 г.”, постановено от Първо наказателно отделение на Върховния съд, изрично и ясно е записано буквално следното: “За престъплението по чл. 113 от НК присъдата е също правилна, обоснована, законосъобразна, а наложеното наказание – справедливо (четири години лишаване от свобода, при максимум, предвиден в закона – пет години). Не само своята Родина – Народна република България подсъдимият е клеветил през инкриминирания период. Той не се е посвенил да клевети и великия Съветски съюз – опората на мира в света, най-верния и искрен приятел на България. Не се е посвенил да клевети и братска Чехословакия. И тук не е нужно да се цитират извадки от многобройните му клеветнически твърдения за тези социалистически страни, чийто международен авторитет и престиж е обект на защита по нашия Наказателен кодекс – чл. 113.”.
*
9. Несъмнено, обект на специално научно изследване е и трябва да бъде въпросът относно дълбоката причина, поради която комунистическата Държавна сигурност с такава настървеност и ожесточеност е осъществявала преследването на онези (може би всички, а може би и не всички!), които по един или друг повод, и в една или друга степен и форма са проявявали интерес към специфичния жанр, към който принадлежат афоризмите, вицовете и анекдотите.
Тук, в това издание, аз не проявявам никаква ангажираност към подобен анализ. Тук аз “преследвам” само една цел: да представя на читателя своеобразен сборник, съдържащ моята почти половинвековна събираческа и редакторска дейност.
При това, независимо от формалното издателско подреждане на материала като “авторски”, нека все пак изрично отбележа, че на този сборник аз въобще не гледам като на т. нар. “авторов материал”, и че за мен той всъщност не е нищо друго, освен “материал”, по отношение на който мога да предявя само претенцията “събрал и редактирал”.
Макар че, строго погледнато, абсолютно всяко добре познато в науката т. нар. “авторство” всъщност не е нищо друго, освен именно “събиране и редактиране”!