Monika Katunskytė’s New Appeal: “I Only Understood One” Amid Holy Scandal

Concert Promoter Dismisses Singer’s defamation Claims as “Empty Excuses”

Vilnius, Lithuania – A prominent Lithuanian concert promoter, Andrew Nagine, has vehemently denied accusations of defamation and retaliatory behavior leveled against him by singer monika Katunskytė. the dispute, which centers around financial disagreements and allegations of slander, has unfolded publicly following Katunskytė’s statements shared on social media.Katunskytė reportedly accused Nagine of spreading false information regarding alcohol consumption and engaging in vengeful practices. Responding to inquiries from People.lt, nagine dismissed the claims as “empty excuses,” suggesting the conflict stems from Katunskytė’s dissatisfaction with the number of concerts he organized for her.

“What she meant, I don’t know at all,” Nagine stated. “The harm might potentially be that she had too many concerts I organized. If she tries to justify, it’s her will. Many concerts were organized by my company.”

Regarding the accusation of slander concerning alcohol use, Nagine countered, “I would remind you, it wasn’t me who initiated that.”

The promoter further explained that financial disagreements arose from standard practices within the event industry, particularly concerning payments for performances at city festivals. He asserted that Katunskytė lacks understanding of the logistical and accounting procedures involved in securing funds from public organizations.

“sometimes a person just doesn’t realize that when there are city holidays, nobody pays the same day,” Nagine explained. “City festivals are public organizations and they account for public systems, issuing accounts over time. A person who doesn’t enter into a company is simply unaware of public tenders.”

Nagine concluded by expressing a desire for Katunskytė’s future success with other collaborators, while implying that their working relationship was ultimately unsustainable.Understanding the Dynamics of Artist-Promoter Disputes

This case highlights a common tension within the entertainment industry: the potential for conflict between artists and promoters. While a prosperous partnership relies on mutual trust and clear interaction,disagreements over finances,creative control,and public image can quickly escalate.Experts note that the complexities of event funding, particularly when involving public entities, often contribute to payment delays and misunderstandings. Artists unfamiliar with these processes may perceive legitimate administrative procedures as intentional withholding of funds.

Furthermore, the use of social media as a platform for airing grievances has become increasingly prevalent, potentially damaging reputations and complicating legal proceedings. Both artists and promoters are advised to prioritize clear contracts, detailed accounting practices, and open dialog to mitigate the risk of such disputes. A strong legal framework and mediation services can also prove invaluable in resolving conflicts before they reach the public domain.[Facebook Post Embed – as provided in original text]

How does Katunskytė’s statement “I only understood one” reflect potential issues with access to justice or comprehension of legal proceedings in her case?

The Core of the Appeal & Initial Reactions

Monika Katunskytė, the Lithuanian woman at the centre of the international parental child abduction case dubbed the “Holy Scandal,” has filed a new appeal regarding the return of her son.Her statement,summarized as “I only understood one,” refers to her comprehension of the legal proceedings adn rulings against her. This latest growth comes after a series of court battles spanning multiple countries – Lithuania, the UK, and Ireland – and continues to draw important media attention and public debate surrounding international family law, religious freedom, and parental rights. The case revolves around allegations that Katunskytė removed her son from the UK, fearing he was being exposed to harmful religious practices by his father, a member of a strict religious order.

Timeline of Events: A Recap of the “holy Scandal”

Understanding Katunskytė’s appeal requires a grasp of the case’s complex history. Here’s a breakdown of key events:

1. Initial Removal (2023): Katunskytė allegedly took her son from the UK without her husband’s consent, citing concerns about his religious upbringing.
2. International Arrest Warrant: An international arrest warrant was issued for Katunskytė,leading to her arrest in Lithuania.
3. Extradition to the UK: following a lengthy legal battle,Katunskytė was extradited to the UK to face accusations of child abduction.
4. Court Rulings: UK courts consistently ruled in favor of the father, ordering the child’s return. These rulings were based on the principles of the Hague Convention on the Civil aspects of International Child Abduction.
5. appeals & Legal Challenges: Katunskytė has repeatedly appealed these rulings, arguing that returning her son would expose him to emotional and psychological harm.
6. “I Only Understood One” Statement (August 2025): Katunskytė’s latest appeal centers on her claim of not fully understanding the legal complexities and implications of the court decisions.

The Hague Convention & Parental Rights

The case heavily relies on interpretations of the Hague Convention. This international treaty aims to secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed or retained across international borders. however, the Convention allows for exceptions, particularly when a child faces a grave risk of harm in their country of habitual residence.

Key Principles of the Hague Convention:

Prompt Return: Prioritizes the swift return of the child to their original country.

Wrongful Removal: Focuses on whether the removal of the child violated the custodial rights of the other parent.

grave Risk of Harm: Allows for exceptions if returning the child would expose them to physical or psychological harm.

Katunskytė’s legal team argues that the UK courts did not adequately consider the potential harm her son might face due to his father’s religious beliefs and practices. they contend that the Convention’s exceptions should apply in this case. This highlights a critical debate: balancing the Convention’s emphasis on restoring the status quo with the paramount importance of child welfare.

Religious Freedom vs. Child Protection: The Central Conflict

The “Holy Scandal” isn’t simply a child abduction case; it’s a clash between religious freedom and child protection.Katunskytė alleges that her son was being subjected to practices within his father’s religious community that she deemed harmful, including:

Strict Religious Doctrine: Concerns about the rigidity and potential for indoctrination.

Limited Exposure to the Outside World: Allegations of isolation from mainstream society.

* Pressure to conform: Fears that her son was being pressured to adopt beliefs and behaviors against his will.

These allegations raise complex questions about the limits of religious freedom when it comes to raising children. while parents have the right to raise their children according to their beliefs, that right is not absolute and must be balanced against the child’s right to protection from harm.

The Role of the Lithuanian Community & Public Support

Katunskytė has garnered significant support from the Lithuanian community,both in Lithuania and abroad. A dedicated online forum,Monika Forum, serves as