ADNAN OKTAR: You know,we were on trialin the Second High Criminal Court for a while. Then the court sentenced us and then the Supreme Court of Appeals annulled this verdict. While our trial was in progress, we noticed something; we noticed that people who had no right to be the intervening party had our case dismissed. We informed the court about this and the court said that we are right. All the members said that we were right. They said that these people had no right as the intervening party. In other words, in a case of organized crime individuals cannot be intervening party. As a law, in no place in Turkey can individuals be the intervening party on behalf of the state. They can only be the intervening party in those cases in which they had been harmed. We have already been acquitted by the court in the case relating to Ebru Simsek and Fatih Altayli. But before that, back in 2005, this case had already expired under statute of limitations. In 2005, Fatih Altayli and Ebru Simsek; their rights of defending their own case and being the intervening party on behalf of their own cases ended in 2005. We were acquitted in their cases but despite this, and although the case was dropped due to the expiration under statute of limitations, these people committed something impossible in terms of practice of law and proceeded as the intervening party. The court did not notice this. The truth of the matter is, we did not notice it either and they thus had the Supreme Court of Appeals annul the case. They made the case that we won annulled. When we noticed this issue, we informed both the Supreme Court of Appeals and our Court about it. All the members of our Court said, "Yes, you are right. What you are saying is accurate." We sent it to the Supreme Court of Appeals; in terms of practice of law its rejection is impossible because at the moment we have been wronged. A person who is not an intervener became an intervening party and had our case annulled. Even if 10 years or 5 years pass by, no matter how much time passes, if a case is dropped through unjust appearances of interveners, it is reckoned to be non-existent.  We asked its status to various instructors, professors. We asked it to the retired members of the Supreme Court of Appeals and they all said, "You are 100 percent right." Right now there is no one in Turkey who claims otherwise. I mean, everyone has a full conviction that the provision annulling our case is in a state of "non-existent".  We asked this to Prof. Dogan Soyaslan of Cankaya University. He submitted his legal opinion concluding, "You are right". "The status of these people as intervening parties dropped in 2005; consequently they cannot be interveners and the case annulled by their status as the intervening party is in the state of non-existent." That is because, only the prosecutor of the state can be the intervener party in cases about organized crimes. The prosecutor of the state did not apply for the annulment of the case, he did not say anything or petition for "annulment" but these two people who had no right to be the intervening party, as two people on the street, say these and thus the case is annulled unlawfully. In such situations, the mentality that states "it has already happened" does not work. Jurisdiction cleanses it; it goes back and cleanses it. This was also asked to Prof. Vahid Bicak of Security Units Faculty of the Police Academy and he submitted his legal opinion in which he said, "This is not acceptable. You are right." The judges of our own court also said, "You are right." Prof. Mustafa Ruhan Erdem of Yasar University also said, "You are right." He submitted his legal opinion and this gentleman is also a professor. Associate Professor Umit Kocasakal of Galatasaray University who is also the Chairman of Istanbul Bar Association is a very precious man of law and he also said, "You are right" in his legal opinion. Prof. Hamide Zafer of Marmara University is a well-known figure in law; she is an expert, a master of law and she also said, "You are right" and submitted her legal opinion. Assistant Professor İlhan Uzulmez of Gazi University is a very well-known man of law and he is of the same opinion.

Prof. Emin Artuk of Marmara University, Dr. Bilal Kartal, the Honorary Head of Departments of the Supreme Court of Appeals, Assistant Prof. Caner Yenidunya of Marmara University, Prof. Erol Cihan, the former instructor of Law School of Istanbul University, Prof. Veli Ozer Ozbek of 9 Eylul University, Prof. Suheyl Doganay, the former instructor of Law School of Galatasaray University, Prof . Fatih Mahmutoglu of Istanbul University, a master in law as well. Assistant Prof. Yusuf Yasar of Marmara University; similarly, he is a very precious man of science. Together with the legal opinions of these people there are tens of others that are being submitted. By common consent they all say, "This is very obvious, there is no other alternative" because two people from the street came and became the intervening party. A legal error has been committed, the court also said, "Yes you are right. There has been an error." According to men of law, in terms of practice of law a contrary situation is not possible. No one can tell otherwise in Turkey. Two people from the streets come up and annul your case. The man has no legal right whatsoever. A mistake is made; what should be done here? It is in a state of "non-existent", right? It is a technical incident, a contrary situation is not possible. A man who has no right for the status of an intervening party has already not the right to be an intervener in a case related to organized crime; only the state can be the intervening party. The prosecutor of the state. Has such an occasion been observed in a crime organization case? This is unprecedented in the history of the Turkish Republic.

OKTAR BABUNA: Natural persons cannot be involved in a crime organization case; this is under law. You know it better, insha’Allah.  

ADNAN OKTAR: He [a natural person] can only be involved in his own case. For instance there was a claim of blackmail but in 2005 it came under statute of limitations. Besides, the court acquitted. The case is over long before and he has no status as an intervener; he is a man from street. Now if this guy became an intervening party, had our case annulled and drifted our case to a totally different point, then it has the status of "non-existent". Who tells this? The Supreme Court says it; I don’t say this. How many? There are at least 30 practices of the courts. Dogan Sayaslan, Vahid Bicak, Ruhan Erdem, Umit Kocasakal, Hamide Zafer, İlhan Uzulmez, Emin Artuk, Bilal Kartal, Caner Yenidunya, Erol Cihan, Veli Ozer Ozbek, Suheyl Donay, Fatih Mahmutoglu, Yusuf Yasar; they are all professors, all experts in law. I mean, "this is very obvious, an alternative is out of question, such an incident is not acceptable." That is, it is a very technical matter. This is not a matter that one can ask for an opinion? I mean, it is not a matter about which you can ask your opinion; it is a technical matter. The guy comes and gets involved unjustly in the practice of law. In a totally unjust manner, he comes and becomes an intervening party in a manner totally against law. For instance let us assume that any man on the street, a vendor, a seller of beverages comes and becomes an intervening party. This is a mistake and all the members of our Court told us, "You are telling the truth, you are right." They all said; "This is very obvious." Nobody says otherwise. Because we are right, they were dismissed from the court in a panic and the court removed their status as the intervening party. The court removed Fatih Altayli's status as an intervening party immediately. If he cannot become an intervening party, can his intervention be valid? No, it can't.