Publius Pundit

« Previous · Home · Next »

Russia: Guilty as Charged

Filed under: Russia

Over the course of the past few years, Vladimir Putin's Russia has suffered an stunning series of devastating defeats in European courts.

First, in October 2006, the European Court for Human Rights found Russia guilty of state-sponsored murder in Chechnya. Numerous subsequent rulings of the ECHR have confirmed the Kremlin is responsible for the most egregious human rights atrocities throughout the breakaway republic.

Then, in August 2007, a Swiss court held that Russia's judicial system was so fundamentally corrupt that it would not cooperate with a Russian state investigation in the YUKOS prosecution.

Two months later, the ECHR ruled that the Kremlin's prosecution of Platon Lebedev, Mikhail Khodorkovskys' right-hand man, violated international law.

Finally, in January of this year, a court in the Netherlands ordered a new auction of the assets of Yukos Finance, a Dutch subsidiary YUKOS, after having declared last year that an earlier sale of the assets was illegal because a Russian bankruptcy declaration against Yukos was invalid under Dutch law. And now, that same court has "rejected claims by Rosneft, the state-controlled Russian oil group, against . . . assets" sought by a group of 50,000 shareholders of Yukos "on the basis that its claims had been paid in full during the forced Russian bankruptcy process of Yukos that began in 2006." It ruled instead for the ownership group, dispensing $850 million to them, a decision that "could open the way for the remainder of an estimated $2bn-worth of Yukos assets in the Netherlands to be used to compensate shareholders."

More is coming. Khodorkovsky himself is pursuing the same relief sought by Lebedev in the ECHR, and will likely win as well. Georgia also has a suit pending in the ECHR alleging mass persecution of Georgians in Russia after Georgia claimed to have discovered a Russian-sponsored coup plot against Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and arrested four Russian military officers In November, an arbitration proceeding will commence in The Hague, Netherlands, before a panel of three respected international jurists. At issue are claims against the Russian government for illegal nationalization of corporate assets, bilking foreign investors in the now-defunct YUKOS oil company to the tune of $100 billion.

Slowly, right before our eyes, Mikhail Khodorkovsky is unraveling the web spun by the insidious Kremlin spiders who jailed him. In court after court, in nation after nation, he is proving beyond question that the actions taken against him by Russia's malignant dictatorship were illegal. He has placed the Kremlin in an utterly untenable position: It must either release him to stop the humiliating court proceedings, thereby freeing him to launch a massive civil opposition action, or it must keep him in prison indefinitely on additional trumped-up charges and face a watershed event in Europe where its basic legal legitimacy is obliterated and its international credibility reduced to the level of Zimbabwe and Zaire.

If Khodorkovsky can accomplish all this from behind bars, it's little wonder that the Kremlin had him jailed. Indeed, one must wonder whether the Kremlin is not already contemplating the Politkovskaya solution.

Social Bookmarking:
Del.icio.us this del.icio.us | digg this digg | Add to Technorati technorati | StumbleUpon Toolbar stumble upon | Furl this furl | Reddit this reddit

Comments


vova says:

"Russia: Guilty as Charged" - Wishful thinking. The Nagin-loving Demonazi feminazi trash and MSM will die before they charge their Kremlin and Lyubyanka bosses.

Step on the blood-sucking tick, behead the Hydra.


Julius Negroponte says:

The Swiss, the Dutch, and the ECHR...How horrific! If I were the Russians and I had that alliance with me I'd certainly be scared! Who's going to be the next to line up in the grand alliance of anti-Russian jurisprudence? The Vatican? Lichtenstein? Luxemborg? San Marino? Andora? Belgium?
Look out Russia, the Swiss are coming with chocolate, the Dutch are coming with whores, and the ECHR is coming with voluminous paperwork, and they're gonna get you!


vova says:

Julius, you're right except that the Russians are coming with the whores--and boy are they good--while the Zeropeans are coming up with the pimps.


La Russophobe says:

JULIUS:

I must hand it to you, your comment is one of the most idiotic I've ever seen on this blog.

If these three courts are so insignificant, why can't "mighty" Russia defeat them? Did that thought ever occur to you? If Russia can't even win in what you say are lowly Netherlands, Switzerland and the EHCR, what chance would it have in the United States, Britain or Germany?

Indeed, I wonder if any thought ever occurs to you. Your rationalization of this humiliating failure is typical Soviethink, exactly what caused the USSR to topple and collapse. Moreover, your flagrant flouting of some of the world's most respected legal forums indicates that you are nothing more than a criminal yourself.


Jay Sunshine says:

Sensationalism aside, the Kremlin needs countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland to funnel state-seized assets into the private accounts of Putin and his ilk. Such court decisions unravel the financial underpinnings of Putin's kleptocracy. If forced to keep their ill-gotten gains in Russia, the Kremlin is vulnerable to the same corruption they've wielded. So Negroponte, the Swiss aren't lobby "chocolates," they're in the process of closing off the only non-Anglo-American banking option open to Russia.


presumed guilty says:

before publishing such inflammatory biased articles it would be wise to check the ECHR records. The author would then see that France, Italy, Poland and Turkey (all happy EU members or prospectives) have a higher violation count than Russia (arising from much smaller populations no less), and pay retrubutions in a much less responsible manner than Russia.

AUTHOR NOTE: Russia has far more cases pending before the ECHR than any other country. Please document your claim with a link or it will be deleted from the blog. It's outrageous that you ask that ECHR records be "checked" without providing this evidence yourself.


Joey Thomlinson says:

"Please document your claim with a link or it will be deleted from the blog"

Wow Kim, what marvelous adherance to the principles of free speech! I'm so happy that we have someone like you safeguarding our freedoms day and night! How would America ever survive without the constant efforts of Kim Zigfeld?

A simple question. When you chearlead for "international law" is it only the kid that targets Russia, or the "international law" that wants to put Rumsfeld, Bush, and Cheney on trial for war crimes?


La Russophobe says:

JOEY:

If, in your warped view, freedom of speech means freedom to lie, then I presume you won't mind if the New York Times runs a front page headline announcing you're a child molester, right?

Dude, you're an amazing dimwit, a pathetic little thug scurrying about in dark places like a cockroach. Really pathetic.

I don't believe Rumsfeld, Bush, or Cheney are guilty of war crimes, so why in the world would I call for their prosecution?

So far, for your information, the ECHR agrees with me. However, if that court decides to investigate and prosecute them, I'll fully support whatever decision it makes, and if it unearths evidence, I'll certainly condemn the wrongdoers. Meanwhile, why don't YOU call for the investigation of VLADIMIR PUTIN, whom the court has never targeted? Aren't you just as biased as you (falsely) accuse me of being?


Joey Thomlinson says:

Are you aware of what "libel" is Kim? I don't think "presumed guilty" was making a maliciously and intentionally false statement. Rather, I think he/she was making the(obvious and true) point that many current NATO/EU members have lost cases in the ECHR with very little consequence (except of course for the slow erosion of their sovereignty, but that's a different argument all together). Perhaps they exageratted when they said that France, Italy, etc. have a higher violation count, but this is grounds for deleting their post? Are you always this much of a Stalinist, or only on Fridays?
(By the way, it is horribly hypocritical of you to criticize them for not posting a link when you yourself make all sorts of outlandish and unsubstantiated claims)

And if freedom of speach doesn't mean "the freedom to lie" (it actually does give you that freedom, but that's beside the point) who the hell gave you the right to call me a "a pathetic little thug scurrying about in dark places like a cockroach"
I'm actually in a very well-lit place right now looking at a beautiful and sunny spring morning. Actually, I detest the dark and avoid it whenever I can. So what you said is, in fact, a lie. Should you delete your post since you violated your own rules?


La Russophobe says:

JOEY:

So, let me see if I understand. If the New York Times runs a front-page headline calling you a child molester, that's just fine, as long as somebody publishes a letter to the editor the next day clarifying that what they really meant was that you did once kiss a girl the day before her eighteenth birthday?

Dude, where did you get your brain? K-mart? Blue light special?

Anyway, thanks for admitting that Mr. "presumed guilty" was lying. Apparently, you think lies are okey-dokey as long as one can find a drop of truth in them anywhere. Apparently, you think that it's not really that bad if your mother gets murdered, because other people's mothers have also been murdered. I think that's just plain sick.


christopher timonen says:

Kim,

You have an unbelievable talent at changing the subject. The White House should hire you to spin our ongoing "victory" in Iraq!

As for this muddled paragraph:
"Anyway, thanks for admitting that Mr. "presumed guilty" was lying. Apparently, you think lies are okey-dokey as long as one can find a drop of truth in them anywhere. Apparently, you think that it's not really that bad if your mother gets murdered, because other people's mothers have also been murdered. I think that's just plain sick."

Do you have serious mental problems? Why are you talking about someone's mother being murdered? Are you always this insane, or is Friday your free-speech-squelching-murder-fantasy day?

With friends like you, "democracy" and "freedom" don't need any enemies!


presumed guilty says:

erm, I am guilty of assuming the author had done some research BEFORE publishing the article. In case the opposite is true, here's what is available on ECHR website for 2006:

http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/449186A0-1EEB-4247-B2EF-16DE8F465D30/0/Table2006ENG.pdf

The results for 2007 are out, but at the moment I only have it in russian, hold on, I will do some more research for you...


presumed guilty says:

hokay, provisional report for 2007,
http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/59F27500-FD1B-4FC5-8F3F-F289B4A03008/0/Annual_Report_2007_Provisional_Edition.pdf

pages 140-141, column judgements (1998-2007)
Russia 397
Turkey 1,641
Poland 489
Italy 1,714
Greece 366
France 588
UK 256

Now, homework, calculate number of judgements per capita. Russia has about 150M, UK about 60M, which country has a higher violation count per capita?


elmer says:

Oh, geez, another rooskie apologist shows up to calculate judgments per capita.

Very, very clever rooskie.

Except for one thing - how many rooskies can actually afford to get to the courts outside of roosha?

Or are stopped once Putin and his rooshan thugs get wind of it?

By attacking the lawyers who represent rooshans trying to get to the courts outside of roosha, for example.

It's like the sovoks used to do - there are no murders in roosha, because noone reports them.


presumed guilty says:

aw, how cute, now we are combining US assumptions about lawyer costs and adding arguments that the author failed to make based on the information the author failed to be aware of. yes, how "second chance" of y'all.

In truth, had the data and elmer's arguments been presented, I would have considered the article fairly balanced, albeit in Fox News sort of way.

Yes the local culture ensures the Russians are less likely to sue than their US or UK counterparts, but on the other hand, Russia actually pays out the judgements as ordered, unlike France or most other EU states. The lawyer fees easily recovered, and the costs are not a valid argument here. It is the cultural disdain toward vengeful lawsuits that is keeping the numbers articially low. I've come to accept that doing research ahead of time is not something the writers or readers of this blog advocate, however.

whatever the reasons may be, at least 4 countries on the list have a higher absolute count, which was very conveniently omitted from the original report, how clever do you think I am now, elmer?


elmer says:

Not very.

Because one of the "lawyer costs" involved is that roosha, and putin and his thugs, attack the lawyers that represent the claimants.

You conveniently ignored that.

And - "cultural disdain toward vengeful lawsuits" means that Russians know that they can't trust the rooshan courts.


presumed guilty says:

reading a couple of ECHR cases originated in russia I haven't seen any undue pressure from Putin... I honestly think he is pretty busy with other things.

Even with the threat of pressure and bribery, most EU lawyers think the russian legal system is more straightforward than that of the US, and would rather face trial in Russia. http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article3570695.ece

once again, whatever the reason may be, there are at least four countries that this article failed to mention and you continue ignoring. Had they been mentioned in the article, I would have no objection to this piece, otherwise it appears to be no better than PRAVDA of 1970's. Frankly, I'be embarrased to show my incompetence in disgusing blatant propaganda agenda, even if I were in middle school. Come on guys, surely you can do better.


elmer says:

presumed guilty, another one of those clever sick puke rooskies, hasn't seen any "undue pressure" from Putin.

All I can say is - another one of those sick puke rooskies shows up and turns out to be too clever by half.

What do we get?

"A survey of 180 in-house counsel working in five European countries identified the US as the jurisdiction they were keenest to avoid, with 29 per cent naming it the country they were most concerned about facing a major dispute in. "

But the reason in the article given to avoid the US is not corruption. THE REASON TO AVOID RUSSIA IS GIVEN - IT'S CORRUPTION!!!!


The reason that these 180 unnamed and unknown "in-house" counsel would rather avoid the US is - "complexity."

Not corruption - complexity.

BP just found out the hard way what the rooshan legal system means.

I wonder if the survey includes BP's in-house counsel?

The "complexity" of the US legal system is easily solved on a daily basis by many in-house counsel - you hire US lawyers who are admitted to practice in the "complexity" of the US legal system.

I wonder if Gazprom was worried about "complexity" when they hired a Swiss lawyer to set up RosUkrEnergo, and have the Swiss lawyer end up on the board of Gazprom.

I wonder if all of the shell corporations that Gazprom "doesn't know about" is because of the "complexity" of all of the intermediaries that Gazprom "doesn't know about."

You rooskies are a bunch of sick pukes. You puke shit, and you expect other people to believe that you just puked up diamonds.


presumed guilty says:

alright, i see your argument style is quite worthy of fox news, starting out with ad hominem, continuing to straw man tactics, scapegoating and distraction. I don't think I can offer anything here. Enjoy yourself, i wash my hands, my point was made.


elmer says:

sly little rooskie declares victory and leaves - without realizing what he is talking about.

This article is about the corruption of the rooshan courts.

The article which clever little rooskie provided says that of 180 corporate, or in-house lawyers, a substantial amount recognized that rooshan courts are corrupt.

They did not say that US courts are corrupt - just that they are "complex."

And, one implication might be that in-house lawyers are willing to pay the going bribery rates in roosha on behalf of their corporations in order to do deals or business in roosha.

That doesn't say much for the in-house lawyers, or the rooshan corrupt courts.

And it certainly doesn't say much for rooshan courts as to human rights, since ordinary people can't afford to pay the bribes that appear to be necessary in rooshan courts.

Clever little rooskie wants to "wash his hands" - be my guest.

I would take a Dutch court over a rooshan court any day.

And Khodorkovsky has.









jordan shoes wholesale says:

Jordan Shoes: Nike Jordan, Air Jordan Shoes and Nike Dunks are on sale here today; Nike Shoes you are looking for are availabe.
Basketball Shoes include:Air Force Ones, Nike Air Forces, Nike Air Force one 1, Nike Dunks, Nike Dunk SB, Nike Air Jordans, Air Jordan Shoes.
Jordan Shoes,Nike Jordans,Wholessale Nike shoes,Wholesale Air Jordans, Wholesale Air Force Ones.


Post a comment


(will not be published)



Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)




TrackBack

TrackBack URL: http://publiuspundit.com/mt/contages.cgi/731