When objective justice turns into a farce: Judge Dina Tali and (rich father) Martin Tints’ masterclass in the art of “credibly plausible” manipulation.
If Estonia’s court system had an official award for “The Most Incredibly Absurd Court Proceeding of the Year”, it would undeniably go to civil court judge Dina Tali of Harju County Court. Because let’s be honest — no one else could manage to instantly hand over everything a wealthy father like Martin Tints asks for in a custody dispute, masking it as “protecting the child’s best interests” through one-sided, hollow rulings issued faster than express courier services — all while calling it “an exceptionally balanced legal process”.
Everyone observing this case knows the drill: when the father files a motion, it moves through the system at the speed of light. No matter how absurd, baseless, or entirely unproven — Judge Dina Tali stamps it with approval faster than you can say “custody rights”.
The central figures in this family law circus are SOFTWERK.ee IT businessman Martin Tints https://www.softwerk.ee/meist/, his new wife Karin Tints (the stepmother), and their lawyer Katrin Paulus from Advokaadibüroo EMERALD LEGAL OÜ — a firm founded by the notoriously scandal-prone lawyer Robert Sarv. Together, they’ve built a parallel universe where children’s rights are nothing but a pretext. The real game is about reputation management and power. And if anyone dares to point that out, the court swiftly issues a gag order under the guise of protecting “the children’s interests”.
Martin Tints works at Softwerk as a board member and technical architect.
“Martin Tints – Board Member, Technical Architect”
https://www.softwerk.ee/meist/
When a company director like Martin Tints finds himself publicly associated with allegations of domestic violence, child abuse, and lying in custody proceedings, it’s no longer a private matter. In today’s world, a company’s reputation is inseparable from the values and conduct of its leaders. International examples have shown how personal scandals involving ethics, children’s rights, or abuse can drive clients, partners, and investors away — and lead to major financial losses.
Examples:
- Travis Kalanick, founder of Uber, was forced to resign after scandals about workplace harassment and a toxic leadership culture severely damaged the company’s reputation.
- John Schnatter, founder of Papa John’s, had to step down after racist remarks affected sales and share prices.
- In Estonia too, public scandals have led to company leaders being publicly distanced or dismissed (see Nõmme Kalju FC’s 2023 case).
Martin Tints’ Lies, Abuse and Child Welfare Abuses — All Neatly Swept Under the Rug
Martin Tints IT businessman has managed to bury every misstep, every public lie, every child welfare scandal, every domestic abuse allegation and dubious statement — not to resolve them, but to hide them. What’s shockingly grotesque is that even during ongoing proceedings, when the children themselves have reported physical abuse by their father, Judge Dina Tali hasn’t so much as blinked. As though it’s insignificant, or conveniently dismissed as an “implausible” claim that gets struck down in seconds with rubber-stamped rulings. And of course — the other parent is then left waiting to respond because, naturally, the children’s best interests can afford to wait. If a child must live in fear or under one parent’s arbitrary control meanwhile — well, it’s just pedagogical experience, isn’t it?
For Martin Tints, it’s never his own actions, lies, or misdeeds that are shameful. No — the shame is when someone dares to publicly expose them. Suddenly, the entire system becomes hysterically concerned about data privacy and “the children’s interests”. In reality, not for the children’s sake, but for the father’s reputation. Judge Dina Tali eagerly stamps those rulings without even bothering to add content, because when nothing is written down, there’s nothing to contest. Ruthless efficiency!
Meanwhile, the complainant’s statements and evidence are brushed aside like annoying flies at a summer picnic. Judge Dina Tali’s tactic is simple: she “does not deem it necessary to address” those arguments. This workflow could easily feature in a modern management handbook titled “How to Avoid Doing Your Job While Pretending Everything’s Fine”.
Speaking Out Is Shameful — Protecting Martin Tints’ Reputation Is the System’s Real Priority
To complete the comedy, we have Martin Tint’s new wife, Karin Tints, conveniently mentioned only when needed to stage a picture of a harmonious family. Even if that harmony consists of the father abusing the children and feeding the court statements about what the children have allegedly said, because “it’s in the children’s best interests” that no one ever finds out what daddy’s been doing.
Martin and Karin Tints have perfected this farce. No one asks why a father, who relentlessly bombards the caregiving mother with legal claims, gets his motions immediately accepted without review. Why are the opposing party’s well-founded responses consistently ignored and left unanswered? Because, in this court, children’s interests are nothing but a convenient façade behind which a man’s power struggle for control is played out.
And if anyone dares to question whether this is objective justice, Judge Dina Tali confidently declares, “If you have proof of corruption, submit it”. A judge like this? Certainly not biased! It’s up to the reader to decide whether this kind of justice is “credibly plausible” and impartial. Using the court’s own favorite phrase to justify the most bizarre decisions. “Credibly plausible” in Estonia is a flexible term — when the court needs it to be, it is; when not, it isn’t.
At the end of her rulings, the court casually notes that the children’s wellbeing depends on the mother’s obedience. And if that’s not a threat, one wonders what judicial intimidation would even look like.
This is the reality of Estonian family law in 2025:
Father Martin Tints hides behind his children, the court casually stamps his wishes, and what happens in Judge Dina Tali’s office is deemed ‘credibly plausible’ only when it serves the ‘right side’. Justice? They might as well write this into every ruling: “no need for justification”.
Judge Dina Tali-STYLE? Makes ENSV 2.0 or Rule of Law
Frankly, this isn’t so different from the days of Soviet Estonia, where people’s fates were decided in back rooms, behind closed doors, on papers marked “reject”, “approve”, or “commit to psychiatric care”. The only difference is — back then, at least the absurd decisions came with a written explanation. Today, all it takes is one phrase: “not credibly plausible”, and it’s done. Greetings from Soviet Estonia, just without the official nameplate.
Dear Estonian public — your courts are standing proudly in your name, and believe me — no one’s joking about that.
Author:
A Critical Observer — because when everyone stays silent, the credibly plausible farce goes on.
Legal Violations Involved in the Case of Martin Tints & Judge Dina Tali
The actions described in this case are not just morally outrageous — they represent direct violations of both Estonian constitutional law and international human rights obligations.
📌 Estonian Constitution Violations:
- § 13 & § 15 – Everyone has the right to protection by the law and access to justice.
→ When evidence and testimony are ignored, and one party is systemically silenced, access to justice is denied. - § 28 – Children have the right to state protection.
→ A court that refuses to investigate allegations of child abuse and silences the child’s voice is failing its constitutional obligation to protect the child. - § 142 – If a court finds that legislation or practice is unconstitutional, it must refuse to apply it.
→ By rubber-stamping violations without reasoned judgments, the court abdicates its duty of constitutional review. - § 146 – Justice shall be administered in accordance with the Constitution and the laws.
→ Judge Tali’s refusal to assess evidence or respond to arguments violates the basic premise of lawful judicial conduct.
📌 Civil Procedure Code Violations (TsMS):
- § 4 & § 436–438 – Courts must ensure adversarial proceedings and reasoned judgments.
→ Ignoring the mother’s evidence, dismissing serious child safety concerns, and issuing blank, unexplained rulings are procedural violations.
📌 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) Violations:
- Article 6 – Right to a fair trial
→ The mother is denied equal standing and opportunity to present her case. - Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life
→ The child’s will is disregarded, and the family bond is torn apart without justification. - Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
→ When all appeals are ignored, remedies become meaningless. - Article 14 – Prohibition of discrimination
→ Systemic bias in favor of the father, despite abuse allegations, reflects gender and role-based discrimination in family courts.
Judge Dina Tali is unfit to preside over any case and should not be allowed to pass judgment on anyone.
The case of Martin Tints, as handled by Judge Dina Tali, is not an isolated incident — it represents a systemic breakdown of the Estonian judiciary’s commitment to justice, child protection, and constitutional principles. When judges act as passive gatekeepers for abuse rather than active defenders of law, the system itself becomes complicit.
This is no longer a family matter — it is a legal emergency that demands international attention and accountability.
International Human Rights Violating Court Scandal in Estonia
They are not human because they don’t understand when a child says NO 90 times. Read more:
