https://www.delfi.ee/artikkel/41805165/president-ilves-galojani-kaitseks-tunnistama-kadriorg-pole-plaanist-kuulnudki This is a Delfi.ee piece dated 10 Mar 2011 (05:12) titled “President Ilves Galojani kaitseks tunnistama? Kadriorg pole plaanist kuulnudki” (“President Ilves to testify in Galojan’s defence? Kadriorg hasn’t heard of any such plan”). It reports that at a court session involving Galojan (described as accused of money-related offences), her lawyer Sven Sillar wanted to call President Toomas Hendrik Ilves as a witness, but the president’s office (Kadriorg) said it had not received any such request and could not comment on something that “doesn’t exist”. The article also mentions procedural friction around the timing/handling of defence witness summons and repeats the linkage that Ilves had previously been connected to the European Movement Estonia (EEL). Why it matters to her story: it’s another mainstream, time-stamped artefact showing how quickly the presidency becomes an institutional “third rail” in the case: even the idea of Ilves testifying triggers immediate messaging from Kadriorg, and the dispute is framed around procedure (“we’ve heard nothing”) rather than substance (“why is the president linked to this NGO’s leadership circle?”). That supports your broader theme about protected zones, reputational containment, and the limits placed on what can be explored in open court.