I direct to you materials about which you asked.
Excuse, translation automatic, but the sense as I hope, will be clear.

Summary record about the judicial session which is taken place on December, 13th, 2006 in October regional Court of St.-Petersburg.

Judicial session has begun at 14.00, on December, 13th.

At hearing were present: a plenty of journalists of various mass-media, the citizens interested by process, judicial session was opened.
From the respondent as the expert one of authors of the textbook - elderly professor S.Mamontov has been declared. During session the brisk and emotional discussion between the parties in which the part of representatives of press has accepted the liveliest participation has inflamed.
Discussion has been provoked by lecture of the dear professor on impossibility of accommodation in the Ark of sharks and dinosaurs, and also about absurd of religious representations about creation of the Universe.
On judicial session the experts invited by court from the St.-Petersburg State University were not, unfortunately. Also there were no representatives of school 148 where Maria was trained, sent rather impartial concerning Maria a response in Court.
During judicial hearing by the party of the claimant it was offered to hear as the expert of a priest of Father Artemija was a hall - unfortunately, the court has requested for this purpose documents of Father Artemija on the maximum Theological formation which will be presented during following judicial session on February, 21st.
Further the party of the claimant had been read the facts of direct pressure upon Maria within the precincts of school and outside of it is in particular, about wrongful understating quarter estimations which had system character, since submission in court of the statement of claim, about pressure upon Maria parts of pedagogical collective, to direct insults in its address within the precincts of school.
The party of the respondent on behalf of dear professor S.Mamontova could not prove objectivity преподаваемых at school of scientific trues regarding biology. In particular, on direct questions from the claimant about an origin of a life on our planet, an origin of the person, natural selection, the party of the respondent got off evasive applications and the general reasonings, in passing releasing stupid critical remarks to address of various religious sights. And again on a direct question of the claimant - whether it should be taught in textbooks true and a trustworthy information - the dear professor was started up in vast reasonings on doubtfulness of criteria of true and so forth
The last judicial session with evidence has shown - neither at composers of the tendentious textbook, nor at a science as a whole, there are NO concrete proofs of the evolutionary theory. Moreover. Modern scientific data, including genetics, the general biology, the comparative anatomy, expressed by the largest representatives of a domestic and foreign science, deny the evolutionary concept. Accordingly, wrongful statements about self-origin of an alive cell in inorganic « a primary broth », about a role of natural selection in formation of new biological kinds, about an origin of the person as biological kind from the monkey, should, from our point of view, to be formulated in textbooks from critical positions.
From our point of view, various statements эволюционистов should be supplied in textbooks by corresponding comments - that the given statements are speculative, and proofs of their validity now are not available. Besides at textbooks there should be a concept of Reasonable Creation as EQUAL in rights alternative of the evolutionary concept.
Besides from textbooks the texts, having by the purpose illegal propagation of atheism, and also incorrect and offensive statements to address of the religious concept of Creation of the World should be excluded or advanced.
In judicial session by the party of the claimant the additional requirement has been declared bringing by the party of the respondent of written apologies to address of Maria Shrajber.
Following judicial session takes place on February, 21st, 2007. In 14.00 in the same judicial hall.
In following judicial session the invited experts, and, most likely, will be heard will be born a judgement if the party of the respondent will not find still any excuses.
We hope, that in this judicial session our requirements will be satisfied, and the evolutionary concept begins to be taught in textbooks as one of hypotheses, with corresponding comments of experts, and the scientific concept of Reasonable Creation, with the corresponding proofs which are available for today at the disposal of a science, will take an equal in rights place in textbooks.

Some comments - from our party.

1. For what in general the given litigation formed. The purpose of the present litigation are:

· The Cancelling of teaching of "theory" of evolution, in that kind as it takes place to be at the moment. Unfortunately, evolutionary "science" as in days of Darwin, and today, has no proofs of given "theory". Presented as proofs « transitive models from the monkey to the person » "Piltdown" the person, Яванский the Pithecanthrope, the Person from Nebraska, and so forth and so forth, are rough both naive fakes and falsifications. Also are unsubstantiated, and groundless the statement about self-origin of an alive cell in « a primary broth ». The given statement which has been not checked up experimentally, is false in essence and under the form. It is necessary to note the system and logic mistakes stated confirming to the given statement, and absence (despite of numerous attempts) experimental acknowledgement. Further, offered by Darwin and its followers the mechanism of speciation by natural selection, accumulation of gradual changes, including changes of a genetic material of alive essences, is doubtful and also deprived proofs, and, hence, should be recognized also EXCLUSIVELY HYPOTHETICAL. It is necessary to specify in corresponding section of the textbook, that set of modern scientific data testify that the given process of speciation is not true, and the modern science has no clear representation about the given process. Besides we recognize the right of " an evolutionary science » on existence as the HYPOTHESIS, and no more that. If some dear scientists need to accept this HYPOTHESIS as the working model - we have no objections, and we can not have. But. And this most important. We demand to recognize, that the unsubstantiated HYPOTHESIS should be supplied in textbooks by corresponding comments - that at the moment supporters of the given HYPOTHESIS have no essential proofs in its protection, however, I shall repeat, it is recognized by the scientific majority as the working model. At the same time, in textbooks that fact should be reflected, that the significant part of scientific community DOES NOT RECOGNIZE the evolutionary theory, and shows numerous proofs of its inaccuracy. Moreover, rather significant part of scientific community recognizes as a working hypothesis Model of Reasonable Creation - Creationism.
· That is if briefly to state our requirements in this part of the claim, we demand, that composers/authors of textbooks of biology were represented as a teaching material by exclusively authentic and proved data. In case founders of a training course consider necessary to place in a teaching material hypothetical, unchecked and a unreliable information to supply the given information with corresponding comments. And, anyway, to relieve textbooks of various falsifications, false fabrications and the doubtful data, offered to pupils as it is unique the true information.
· Further, we demand, that the dear scientific community has presented In COURT, instead of within the limits of the scientific discussions which are passing usually behind closed doors, the PROOF which it has regarding certificates of the EVOLUTIONARY origin of a life on our planet, and the person. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS provide, that for acknowledgement of any fact, or opinion, should be shown and filed MATERIAL EVIDENCES, or their copies. Scientific discussions in this area, as a rule, operate with opinions of authorities, instead of proofs.
· Further, we demand, that from teaching materials parts of the text which offend feelings and belief of the believing person have been withdrawn, to what faith the given person would not belong.
· Further, we demand, that from teaching materials the propagation of communistic outlook containing, unfortunately, at the moment in textbooks has been withdrawn.

Direct contacts for were interested our process and a problematics of a refutation of darvinism:
www.antidarvin.com - the site is devoted to proofs of falsity of the theory of evolution. An official site of antidarvinian movement of Russia.
<http: // www.scienceandapologetics.org/> - aphologetick the Orthodox Christian resource.
<http: // www.mtu-net.ru/creation/> - Moscow Society Креационной of the Science.
<http: // www.shestodnev.ru> - the educational Center «Six days of Creation» (Russian Orthodox Church)
www.vuima.ru - a site of PR-director of the project, Anton Jurevicha Vujmy, E-mailvuima@vuima.ru
E-mail the lawyer of process Konstantin Vadimovicha Romanov -kromanov@yandex.ru <mailto:kromanov@yandex.ru>
E-mail Cyril Lvovicha Shrajber - alef@alef007.ru - an official site of the company - www.alef007.ru

Further the FULL TEXT of the CLAIM follows.

October Federal court of the Admiralty area of St.-Petersburg.
St.-Petersburg, 190000, street Pochtamtskaja, д.17.
The claimant: minor Shrajber Maria Kirillovna, on behalf of the lawful representative (father) Shrajber Cyril Lvovicha.
The respondent: Committee on formations of the Government of St.-Petersburg. St.-Petersburg, 190000, пер. Антоненко, д.8.
The respondent: the Ministry of Education and sciences of the Russian Federation.
Moscow, 125993, GSP-3, street Tver, д.11.

St.-Petersburg, on July, 12th, 2006.

The statement of claim

The claimant, 9/1/2006 of year, is the schoolgirl of 11-th class of general educational establishment - schools №148 Vyborg areas of St.-Petersburg. According to a part II, section « the Standard of the average (full) general education in biology of " the Federal component of state standard of the general education approved by the Order №1089 from March, 5th, 2004 of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation « About the statement of a federal component of the state educational standards of the initial general, basic general and average (full) general education », further under the text the Standard, is approved the standard in biology, which, in subitems: 1) « the Obligatory minimum of the maintenance of the basic educational programs », sections: "Kind", « Requirements to a level of preparation of graduates »; 2) « the Obligatory minimum of the maintenance of the basic educational programs », sections: « Kind », are based on "theories" of evolution and an origin of person C.Darvina. The standard is realized in the textbook of biology for 10 - 11 classes, the edition 7 ДРОФА, 2004, further under the text the Textbook, on which Claimant taught, and teach, corresponding sections of biology. The textbook is recommended by the Respondent - the Ministry of Education of Russia.
The claimant considers, that "theory" of evolution and C.Darvina's natural selection, "theory" of an origin of person C.Darvina, and also developed, on the basis of C.Darvina's "theories", « scientific theories », presented to the Textbook as a teaching material, on the basis of the Standard, the rights of the Claimant established п.1 and item 2 ст.2, ч.1 and ч.3 п.1 ст.14, п.15 ст.50 the Law of Russia « About formation », п.1, ч.4 and ч.5 п.2 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About the information break, informations and protection of the information », п.3 and ч.1 п.6 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About a freedom of worship and about religious associations », and also п.5 ст.9 the Law of Russia « About political parties », on the below-mentioned bases.
1. In opinion of the Claimant, infringement by Respondents п.1 and item 2 ст.2, ч.1 and ч.3 п.1 ст.14 the Law of Russia « About formation » was expressed in below-mentioned.
In conformity with the Standard and on the basis of approved by the Respondent - the Ministry of Education of Russia of the Textbook, the Claimant is obliged to study, and to confirm the knowledge of the passed material in the form of answers, section of biology - an origin of the person - on the basis of "theory" of an origin of the person, the developed C.Darvainom. In a basis of given "theory" there is a postulate, that the person has occured from an anthropoid. Actually the program stated in the Textbook on the basis of the standard, regarding the theory of evolution and an origin of the person, is based on the concept stated by C.Darvinom. Other scientific theories or hypotheses are presented in the Textbook with the characteristics certifying them not scientific character (in case of their divergence with C.Darvina's "theory") or, as scientific theories which confirm the "theory" stated by C.Darvinom.
The claimant considers, that the curriculum in biology - the section studying an origin of the person - in conformity with the Standard, and also a teaching material stated in the Textbook, approved by the Respondent - the Ministry of Education of Russia, should promote mastering by the Claimant of the scientific facts, development of its person, to form complete system of knowledge of an origin of the person. C.Darvina's "theory" about an origin of the person on which the teaching material approved by the Standard and stated in the Textbook is based, is not the scientific fact, i.e. is false, as the scientific theory. Ложность C.Darvina's "theories" about an origin of the person consists that given "theory" is not confirmed by the scientific fact, both in the form of research experiment, and in the form of archeological excavations. Actually C.Darvina's "theory" about an origin of the person can be considered only, as a scientific hypothesis.
The claimant considers, that studying false, not C.Darvina's scientific theory about an origin of the person does not allow the Claimant to develop itself as the person and to form at itself complete system of knowledge of an origin of the person.
Hence, Respondents break the rights of the claimant established п.1 and item 2 ст.2, ч.1 and ч.3 п.1 ст.14 the Law of Russia « About formation ».
2. In opinion of the Claimant, infringement by Respondents п.1, ч.4 and ч.5 п.2 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About the information, and to protection of the information » was expressed information in below-mentioned.
The claimant, as a citizen of Russia and also as studying has the right to reception of the qualitative information which provides constitutional laws of the Claimant on secondary education. The educational information stated in the Textbook, and approved by the Standard, about an origin of the person on the basis of false (not scientific) C.Darvina's "theory" does not provide the rights of the Claimant established п.1, ч.4 and ч.5 п.2 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About the information, information and protection of the information » since C.Darvina's "theory" about an origin of the person is not confirmed by the scientific fact in the form of research experiment or in the form of archeological excavations.
Granting to the Claimant false (not scientific) information on an origin of the person is infringement of the rights of the Claimant established п.1, ч.4 and ч.5 п.2 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About the information, information and protection of the information ».
3. In opinion of the Claimant, infringement by Respondents п.3 and ч.1 п.6 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About a freedom of worship and about religious associations », was expressed in below-mentioned.
C.Darvina's "theory" is the atheistic theory directed on discredit of religious perception of an origin of the person. The statement of antireligious "theory" of C.Darvina in the form of, stated in the Textbook approved by the Respondent - the Ministry of Education of Russia, humiliates and offends religious feelings of the Claimant, and also humiliates its advantage.
The insult of religious feelings of the claimant was expressed in the pejorative attitude to religion. For example, on page №343 of the Textbook it is specified, that religious doctrines have occured from legends and myths, on page №359 of the Textbook, about nonsense of the assumption, that the Creator has created the alive world, on page №352 of the Textbook the religious doctrine stated in the Bible, refers to as a legend.
The humiliation of advantage of the Claimant is expressed that, proclaiming the religious views, the Claimant becomes in opinion of schoolmates to whom C.Darvina's atheistic "theory" about an origin of the person is taught, the person adhering not scientific and ridiculous (p. 359 of the Textbook) sights which I mismatch the validity.
Statement of the doctrine of C.Darvina as atheistic, leads to antireligious perception of a position of the person believing in the God that conducts to interreligious hostility.
Hence, a statement of "theory" of C.Darvina about an origin of the person, in that form which is approved by the Standard and it is stated in a teaching material of the Textbook, offends religious feelings of the claimant, and breaks the rights of the claimant established п.3 and ч.1 п.6 ст.3 of the Law of Russia « About a freedom of worship and about religious associations ».
4. In opinion of the Claimant, infringement by Respondents п.15 ст.50 the Law of Russia « About formation » and п.5 ст.9 the Law of Russia « About political parties », was expressed in below-mentioned.
C.Darvina's stated in the Textbook and established by the Standard the antireligious, atheistic doctrine, is based on марксистско-lenin ideological principles. As the proof this is served with the reference to page №353 and page №466 of the Textbook for F.Engelsa's work and founders of a historical materialism, that in aggregate, in view of strongly pronounced antireligiousness, specifies fastening of марксистско-lenin ideology.
Hence, by Respondents are broken: п.15 ст.50 the Law of Russia « About formation » and п.5 ст.9 the Law of Russia « About political parties ».

Thus, Respondents, having broken the rights of the Claimant established п.1 and item 2 ст.2, ч.1 and ч.3 п.1 ст.14, п.15 ст.50 the Law of Russia « About formation », п.1, ч.4 and ч.5 п.2 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About the information, information and protection of the information », п.3 and ч.1 п.6 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About a freedom of worship and about religious associations », and also п.5 ст.9 the Law of Russia « About political parties », have harmed the Claimant who was expressed in: 1) reception of poor-quality formation - not receptions by the Claimant scientifically proved (confirmed by research experiment or archeological finds) knowledge (information); 2) the insult of religious feelings of the Claimant; 3) in compulsion to perception of марксистско-lenin ideology and atheistic sights.

I ask Court, in conformity and on the basis of п.1 and п.2 ст.3, п.п.1 п.1 ст.22, ст.24, ст.28 and ст.131 ГПК to Russia, to accept the present Statement of claim to the manufacture and to consider it in essence by way of, established by the current legislation.

I ask Court (the requirement №1) to oblige the Respondent to eliminate infringements of the rights of the Claimant established п.1 and item 2 ст.2, ч.1 and ч.3 п.1 ст.14, п.15 ст.50 the Law of Russia « About formation », п.1, ч.4 and ч.5 п.2 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About the information, informations and protection of the information », п.3 and ч.1 п.6 ст.3 the Law of Russia « About a freedom of worship and about religious associations », and also п.5 ст.9 the Law of Russia « About political parties », and, in conformity with ст.1065 the Civil code of Russia to forbid teaching in general educational educational institutions (schools) of the theory of evolution and the theory of an origin of person C.Darvina, as prepotent (prevailing, true) to the scientific theory.

The State Tax is paid at a rate of, established п.2 ст.88 ГПК to Russia.

To the present Statement of claim it is enclosed:
1. Copies of the present statement of claim (two copies) for a direction to Respondents.
2. The Receipt on payment of a State Tax.
3. The Copy of the Birth certificate of Shrajber Maria Kirillovny.
4. The Copy of the Birth certificate of Shrajber Maria Kirillovny - copies on number of Respondents.

The signature of the Claimant:
The lawful representative of the Claimant (father) Shrajber Cyril Lvovich