Mikhail Khodorkovksy and Platon Lebedev in jail (Photo by Itar-Tass)
Read the original article in the extended post
Why are Beltway-types indignant about Enron, but not Khodorkovsky?
What is the motivation for a respectable outlet like The Wall Street Journal to continue to publish the lies and libelous screeds of a convicted felon?
Don’t people who support the rule of law understand that it involves prosecuting criminals and making them pay for their crimes?
“The Kremlin this week showed that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are dead in Vladimir Putin's Russia. With extraordinarily cynical timing, new charges -- this time, money-laundering -- were brought against Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who once ran Russia's largest oil company, Yukos,” writes Robert Amsterdam, Mikhail Khodorkovsky’s international defense counsel, on the pages of the WSJ.
“These charges have nothing to do with upholding Russia's laws,” continues Mr. Amsterdam. “They have everything to do with the fact that Mr. Khodorkovsky would have been eligible for parole later this year, having served half his eight-year sentence on a politically motivated tax evasion conviction handed down in 2005. Another show trial will surely propel the machinery of so-called justice toward another preordained guilty verdict.”
Russia Blog has written several times about the case of the imprisoned Russian oligarch. The basic facts are that Mikhail Khodorkovsky owned and operated Yukos, the largest oil company in Russia. He was found to have misappropriated billions of dollars and to have operated the company by unscrupulous methods during the 1990s.
Many of Khodorkovsky’s defenders argue that all Russian wealth was achieved illegally during those years. However, Khodorkovsky’s case is unique - there was no other oligarch in Russia who evaded taxes on such a vast scale or who spent millions of dollars in Washington, D.C. lobbying and advocating his own political significance, or who dared attempt self-aggrandizement on such a large-scale (e.g., by selling 40% of Russia’s oil assets to a foreign company). Furthermore, Khodorkovsky's case is unique in that no other oligarch was proven to have a chief of security who killed people (Yukos Chief of Security, Alexei Pichugin, was convicted by a jury of two murders and ordering contract killings).
On the financial side, many independent analysts have pointed out that the amount of taxes evaded by Khodorkovsky was a multi-billion dollar sum (approximately 20-25 billion dollars, however, Russian prosecutors only recently uncovered this fraud). For those who have long followed the story of the oligarch who attempted to sell out Russia for his own gain, his past conviction, and the new charges filed against him should come as no particular surprise.
Another interesting observation is that Robert Amsterdam uses the word “gulag” to describe the prison where Khodorkovsky resides these days. The WSJ happily reprints this nonsense. To be sure, there are prisons in modern Russia, and Russia Blog did a post with photos about Khodorkovsky’s life in captivity in his new Siberian digs. But even though conditions might seem rough, the Siberian facility is one of the better prisons in Russia. In sum, Khodorkovsky’s time in this facility – much like the prison sentences of convicted Enron executives – is well earned. Such a comparison between Khodorkovsky and his American counterparts may actually be flawed, in the sense that Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling didn’t defraud their employees and investors at levels even close to what Mr. Khodorkovsky did.
Mr. Amsterdam complains that Khodorkovsky’s support for Russian liberal parties won’t be available the coming elections. However, he neglects to mention the fact that liberal parties are largely unpopular in Russia—not because their leaders are imprisoned or persecuted—but for a much more practical reason. In the conscious of mainstream Russians, the liberal parties are largely considered responsible for the disastrous "shock therapy reforms” of the early 1990s. In the recent regional elections, the liberal parties failed to obtain even 5% of the vote.
Russian voters gave the liberal parties a chance in the Nineties and that period of time saw the enormous creation of wealth, but only for a select few like Khodorkovsky. That left much of the rest of the nation in poverty. The inability of the Russian government to collect taxes in the 1990s contributed to the hyperinflation of 1998, which wiped out the savings of millions. In the minds of many Russians, Putin’s administration (which Amsterdam refers to as a “regime”) has restored the stability of the Soviet Union, but this time based upon a “regime” of free market values and attracting foreign investment. Russia now has a growing middle class. Average salaries have increased by a third in the last two years alone, while pensions and government debt have been considerably better managed. Russia's international debts accrued during the 1990s and inherited from the Soviet Union have been paid down.
The WSJ should be asking probing questions like: How it is that Russia today drills less than in it did during the years of Khodorkovsky, but recently surpassed Saudi Arabia as the largest oil producer in the world?
How is it that between 1992 and 2001 only $9 billion in taxes were collected from oil sales? And how is that today, under the Putin “regime”, oil revenue is being used to build critical infrastructure, pay down the national debt, and to put away $300 billion into a stabilization fund?
If Khodorkovsky, who owned the largest oil company in Russia (with rights to over 40% of the country’s reserves), contributed just a few billion dollars in tax payments over more than a decade, where did the rest of his profits go?
It stands to reason that Russian prosecutors might need to delve even further into the tangled-web of Yukos finances—perhaps the $22-25 billion that they are seeking from Khodorkovsky at the moment is not enough!
Mr. Amsterdam also writes about Khodorkovsky’s charitable giving and “vision” for Russia. When he was the wealthiest man Russia, Khodorkovsky donated scarcely $50 million a year. Khodorkovsky's foundation, Open Russia, spent most of its money bashing the Putin administration while helping out old liberal cronies and/or communist dupes.
By the way, for those worried about the future of Russia’s liberal political parties, the former world champion chess player Garry Kasparov has proposed a “grand” vision we shouldn’t forget about. In fact, he even presented his ideas in a recent article in the Wall Street Journal: Kasparov wants to bring down Putin by forming a coalition between Russia's liberals and the fascists and communists.
The last time such a team was formed in Europe, things didn’t turn out to well. What did Putin do to America and Garry Kasparov to become less popular in the U.S. than Russia's fascists and communists? I do not mention Russia's liberals, because once the new “political group” is in charge—they aren’t likely to have a voice for very long at all.
Amsterdam continues to employ the old canards that after Putin “stole” Khodorkovsky’s property and that the Kremlin exploits Russia's energy supplies as a geopolitical weapon to dominate Europe. The Canadian attorney forgot to mention that it was natural gas that Moscow was forced to shut off briefly last year, not oil – making the logical connection between the Yukos case and Gazprom's moves weak at best.
Moreover, corrupt officials in Ukraine and Belarus were siphoning off Russian gas without paying their debts to Russia for previous deliveries. This theft reduced pressure in the gas export pipelines, which in turn caused shortages in Europe. Gazprom temporarily interrupted gas exports to Ukraine and threatened to cut off supplies to Belarus in order to push these countries closer to paying European market prices for energy. (See: “Money, Not Geopolitics, Drives Russian Energy Policy.”) While Amsterdam calls this tough negotiating strategy unfair and “non-market”, the demands of the Russian and global energy marketplace are what drive the decision-making of Gazprom executives.
Mr. Amsterdam’s plea for the world to take interest in Khodorkovsky is simply a ploy to get his client off the hook. Russians have long since ceased to care about Khodorkovsky's “plight” or what happens to him. By and large, Khodorkovsky has been written off as a criminal and consigned to his fate in prison.
Today Russians enjoy an improving lifestyle, one that has been brought to them courtesy of a robust market place. Russians in thegrowing middle class are busy renovating their apartments and frequenting new restaurants and coffee shops. Middle-class Russians are earning money in a stabilized economy while the rule of law is slowly taking hold and fortifying consumer confidence. But the rule of law requires administering justice—as in the case of the prosecution (not persecution) of Khodorkovsky. In fact, the failure of the Orange coalition government in Ukraine to prosecute major criminals was a major reason for their downfall last year.
To see the supposedly “devastating” results of the so-called “Putin regime” for yourself, visit Russia Blog’s picture posts from Moscow and St. Petersburg, which the editors of this website visited during our trips to Russia last month. Meanwhile, Mr. Amsterdam is in London, the home of at least one other Russian oligarch and rabble-rouser in exile.
Only a few politicians and pundits inside the Beltway and some politically excited Westerners still care about developments in the Russian state’s ongoing case against Mr. Khodorkovsky. In a political culture obsessed with celebrity trials, Americans are blinded as to how their support for a notorious thief and accomplice to murder gets in the way of better Russian-American relations. How much longer will this continue? If Americans believe the propaganda issued by Mr. Amsterdam and his client, the damage will surely continue—dampening hopes for more prosperous and healthy relations between our two countries.
Original Wall Street Journal article:
Mikhail Khodorkovsky
By ROBERT R. AMSTERDAM
February 9, 2007; Page A10
The Kremlin this week showed that democracy, human rights and the rule of law are dead in Vladimir Putin's Russia. With extraordinarily cynical timing, new charges -- this time, money-laundering -- were brought against Mikhail Khodorkovsky, who once ran Russia's largest oil company, Yukos. These charges have nothing to do with upholding Russia's laws. They have everything to do with the fact that Mr. Khodorkovsky would have been eligible for parole later this year, having served half his eight-year sentence on a politically motivated tax evasion conviction handed down in 2005. Another show trial will surely propel the machinery of so-called justice toward another preordained guilty verdict.
The fresh case means that Mr. Khodorkovsky will be unable to support democratic opposition parties in December's Duma elections or the 2008 "presidential coronation." And it means that the Kremlin will continue to wield pervasive control over the energy sector in which he had done so much to promote market-based competition and growth.
Before his arrest in 2003, Mr. Khodorkovsky set out his vision for Russia. He encouraged the development of civil society and the growth of alternative political parties. He worked to provide schools across with access to the Internet and supported charitable and cultural programs. He publicly confronted the president about the need to stamp out corruption in Russia.
When it became clear that the state did not share his vision and was not going to tolerate dissent, Mr. Khodorkovsky did not flee. He cooperated with the justice system -- convinced of his innocence, and convinced, also, that he could challenge what seemed to be an attempt by corrupt officials to intimidate him. He did not foresee how ruthlessly the law would be disregarded in the Kremlin's drive to crush him. Nor did anyone quite foresee the blatant theft of Yukos assets.
By jailing Mr. Khodorkovsky and stealing Yukos, the Putin regime cleared the energy sector of any competitors. It enabled the Kremlin to use energy as a political weapon against Russia's immediate neighbors and the whole of Europe. Mr. Khodorkovsky and his company, in other words, had to be destroyed for Mr. Putin's non-market, state corporatism and energy imperialism to thrive. So now, no one will build competing pipelines; no one will advocate the breakup of state monopolies; no one will promote the corporate governance and transparency that are anathemas to the state-owned enterprises. The new charges against Mr. Khodorkovsky are, in fact, intended to provide a smokescreen for the Russian government's illegal sale, later this year, of the remaining assets of Yukos, valued at $33 billion, to those very companies.
The Russian regime has lost the moral authority to dispense justice. Its exploitation of prosecutorial and regulatory powers, though shielded by state immunity, has become criminal. Selective enforcement of tax and environmental laws is the favored means of stealing assets from both domestic and foreign owners. Extortion is entrenched as a method of acquisition by the state.
The Yukos saga was followed late last year by the shakedown of Royal Dutch Shell at its Sakhalin-2 project. With each such case, the Kremlin is less concerned about even keeping up pretenses. Moscow calculates it has space to maneuver around legal and moral obligations, whether with respect to existing treaties, or negotiations over developing the giant Shtokman gas field, or its commitments to supply gas and oil dependably without political interference.
When Mr. Khodorkovsky was interrogated about the new charges, he declared that he had no faith in Russian justice, and that he will refuse to cooperate with the prosecutors in another politically driven farce of a trial. This week he appealed to the world not for himself but for all Russians: "Their only chance is the timely voluntary transfer of power in Russia by the means of honest, fair and transparent elections. . . . [The new president] should have nothing in common with the giant corruption machine that has paralyzed Russia."
Even in a Siberian gulag, Mr. Khodorkovsky has the courage to say: Enough! His fate is far more important than most people in the West realize. Some Western leaders such as Angela Merkel of Germany and José Manuel Barroso of the European Commission have raised his case with the Russian president. The dictatorial feathers were not ruffled and both were summarily brushed off. And so, another Khodorkovsky trial will soon be upon us. Let's be sure that this time we all recognize that Mikhail Khodorkovsky's fight is for the future of Russia and its relationship with the rest of the world.
Mr. Amsterdam is international defense counsel for Mikhail Khodorkovsky, and is based in London after being deported from Russia
End of the article
Comments
632C5R09OW8
ftssoldier.blogspot.com
www.edwardsaid.org
How billions of barrels
of oil does russia have?
How Unconvectional oil
does russia have?
Link 1
Link 2
Are these links regrauding
heavy oil through?
Please reply.
Posted by: 632C5R09OW8 | February 9, 2007 7:24 PM
Who are the people behind Khodorovsky? Here is a clue:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/world/20031102-111400-3720r.htm
Posted by: kula kundalini | February 10, 2007 3:35 AM
FYI - You can access Wall Street Journal articles for free with a netpass from: http://news.congoo.com
Andrew Tobias blogged about this last week, I thought it was a great tip!
Posted by: Robert | February 10, 2007 7:50 AM
I like the comparison betwixt Enron in the USA and Yukos in Russia. Why is the media all up in arms about Khodorkovsky, but somehow relieved when the Enron execs are found dead?
Is it simply one more bone for Westerners to pick with Putin and his "regime"?
However, while Putin & Co. have expirimented with free market reforms, I think the West is ever more concerned by the nationalization of Russia's oil resources. That is perhaps what is really making Westerners so anxious.
Posted by: Petroslav | February 10, 2007 9:19 AM
This argument is entirely baseless. If Russia Blog is actually trying to assert that Khodorkovsky received a "fair trial" from an impartial court, and if Russia Blog is actually trying to argue that Khodorkovsky IS NOT being politically persecuted, it has undermined its credibility.
You guys are supposed to know about Russia, but here you come off looking like clueless apologists sitting on the sidelines. You don't have to like or admire Khodorkovsky, and in fact, like Bill Gates, you can despise him for his accomplishments. But to pretend that the Russian courts haven't fouled up this case is an exercise in ignorance.
Posted by: Thomas Dupont | February 10, 2007 9:21 AM
I'm with Thomas Dupont. My sense is that the Kremlin under Putin selectively persecuted only those oligarchs who challenged them (e.g., Berezovsky and Khodorkovsky). By most accounts Khodorkovsky was a rather forward-thinking businessman. He certainly was a proponent of free market capitalism, economic reforms and transparency.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Yukos was the first company to go above and beyond the accounting standards of Russia to hire Price Waterhouse and Coopers to audit them in the '90s. I'm sure he evaded some taxes, I'm sure of it. But given the business climate he may have felt it necessary to stay competitive with *all* of the other businessmen who were also evading taxes. Or maybe he just wanted to profit. But even so the punishment did not fit the crime, especially considering that the punishment was selectively applied to only him and a few other controversial people.
You say he was attempting self-aggrandizement "by selling 40% of Russia’s oil assets to a foreign company", but so what? What is wrong with attempting to partner with foreign oil companies? I thought bringing in foreign investment was a good thing. Khodorkovsky thought so, perhaps he was ahead of his time. Given the way the Kremlin has strongarmed Shell and BP in recent months, this much is clear.
As an American I generally try to consider Russian political issues with a grain of salt because I understand there is a fairly strong anti-Russian slant in the Western media. But this is one issue they got right.
Posted by: Dusty Wilmes | February 10, 2007 2:43 PM
"Misrepresenting the Truth.."
Who should be designated to represent "the truth"?
What are their qualifications? Have they in fact been completely truthful?
Posted by: Misha | February 10, 2007 8:30 PM
Mikhail Khodorkovsky has three advantages on his side.
a) He is Jewish
b) He is Russian
c) He is imprisoned in Russia.
Would he be a Muslim, an Iranian and imprisoned in Guantanamo, nobody in the US mainstream press would care about him. Nobody would doubt him being a criminal.
But as Russia-bashing is political correct, Jews being always innocent and the fact that Mikhail Khodorkovsky has legal assistance is generally accepted while most of the Guantanamo inmates have none, not even have faced a trial after years of imprisonment, he is (of course) a martyr and not a criminal.
Posted by: Sergej Varsjinskij | February 11, 2007 2:30 AM
To Thomas Dupont & Dusty Wilmes,
Look guys, all this geopolitical heavy breathing and finger pointing is stupid.
Be honest, America and Western nations had great economies and with such white hot economic activity, energy is pissed away in an instant.
And to this end, advanced economies like the US (I assume massive debt is a good thing) need more energy... and Americans need to skew the politics to get access to said energy. Sure Yukos was an Enron, sure Khodorkovsky was a criminal, but he was steeling for America.
We are all humans, and right now America is in a pickle, I like to compare it to "running out of beer", and America is now running the streets taking everyone's beer, from Iraq, to Venezuela to Iran and Russia.
There are secret agendas, secondary agendas, period. As far as I see the US foreign policy track record is to reach over and take everyone lese beer whenever America runs out.
Khodorkovsky was no better than Kenny Boy Lay of Enron.
As soon as America starts bring peace in Iraq, or find Bin Laden, or pays her debts, or stops asking for subsidies from the likes of China, or rejoins the ABM treaty or stops abusing prisoners, or feeds it's 10 million children that are below poverty, or takes care of the 40 million with out health insurance or admits to the 15,000,000 American Indians killed (evidently for "democracy") or admits to the blacks dies by the millions (again, supposedly for democracy), or actually stats putting doing what it preaches, then maybe I'll believe in what Bush says.
Until then, when you meet an Americans and shake his hands, better count your fingers.
And Putin's message to America, and what most leaders are starting to say to America, is to stay out of out friggen refrigerator (oil reserves), go make your own god damn beer (oil / gas).
Posted by: Luther G. Quick | February 11, 2007 6:34 PM
I disagree with Dupont and Wilmes. It is very difficult for us to judge the case without the facts, and what little information we have is based on sloppy reporting by the Western media. You might want to read two articles by Major Ron Hamilton and one differing by Lt Nathan Arnold. Their articles can be found on Johnson's Russia List at the following links. Both of these men were in military intelligence.
Major Hamilton's article:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9288-14.cfm
Lt Arnold's reponse:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9289-28.cfm
Major Hamilton's reponse to Lt Arnold:
http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/9290-26.cfm
Posted by: Gary Butner | February 11, 2007 11:03 PM
Thanks for a very well-written article as always! Very pleased to see not only the mainstream western media view about evil Putin.
Posted by: Andrej | February 12, 2007 12:10 AM
You tell them.
Posted by: Zhana Klimova | February 12, 2007 9:17 AM
At least one person made a big mistake here.
You are never too old to learn from your mistakes.
Hopefully this will be absorbed.
Posted by: Alexandra | February 12, 2007 9:46 AM
Who wants to take the bet that the Russian Federation will not steal Sakhalin II once Shell makes the whole enterprise there profitable.
Posted by: Jason H | February 12, 2007 12:15 PM
Not a bad critique Yuri.
Here is a great one from The Great One:
http://seansrusskiiblog.blogspot.com/2007/02/media-critique-on-recent-coverage-of.html
The truly pro-Russian of advocates should be backing him 100%.
Posted by: Andrew Waller | February 12, 2007 1:28 PM
Yuri - Loved the article. I think it's important to mention that Khodorkovsky was giving most of his political contributions to the Communist party rather then to “liberal reformers.” For several elections Yukos was one of the largest contributors to “communists” and the “agrarian party,” whose campaigns were basically for the restoration of the “good-old-Soviet times.” That doesn’t really portray Khodorkovsky as a victim struggling for democracy, does it?
Also – why are Khodorkovsky's contributions for political causes considered to be charitable donations? In the U.S. a true charity is the Red Cross, the United Way, or a homeless shelter – not the Republican or Democratic parties. How would Americans feel if ExonMobil were trying to buy itself a majority in Congress? Khodorkovsky didn’t play by any of the rules that all other Russians have to live by during those hard times (neither “rules of law” nor common agreements between the elites); that’s why the majority of Russians don’t feel any pity for him. He truly thought he was above it all – and could buy “indulgence/protection” through political contributions to U.S. think tanks. I’m disgusted by the WSJ – I hoped that his “contributions” would have run out by now and allow for a more balanced perspective.
Yuri keep doing great work – you are not apologizing for anyone – you are just voicing how many Russians feel about the matter.
Posted by: Timofey | February 12, 2007 1:54 PM
Gary Butner - I tried to read Hamilton's article, but quit after two paragraphs.
He writes: "...that a jury of his Russian citizen peers has convicted him in a court of law makes the probability of his guilt very high."
Nope, there was no jury.
Posted by: db | February 12, 2007 6:32 PM
db-I may be reading Mikhail Khodorkovsky's Trial Website incorrectly, but I clearly see the word "jury" in the following paragraph:
"The session was finished today at 13:00 after Mikhail Khodorkovsky made his last plea and Judge Irina Kolesnikova announced that the jury had retired to the deliberation room in order to determine a sentence that would be pronounced on April 27. After the end of the session, numerous journalists and camera operators surrounded Mikhail Khodorkovsky's lawyers Genrikh Padva, Yuri Schmidt and Robert Amsterdam and Platon Lebedev's attorney Evgeny Baru and asked them to comment on court's proceedings."
http://www.khodorkovskytrial.com/qanda/20050411_outside.cfm
Posted by: Gary Butner | February 12, 2007 7:58 PM
Gary Butner:
Of those two, Ron Hamilton impressed as the considerably more informed.
For more on their exchange, see a Nov. 5, 2005 dated correspondence at:
http://english.intelligent.ru/letters/index.html
At present, the links at that site's section aren't successfully clicking in. I hope it's not a nouveau Soviet action (the sudden removing of web material to conform with the desires of an overbearingly influential some).
Posted by: Misha | February 12, 2007 10:21 PM
Gary Butner - Mixed up in translation. There was no jury, there was a panel of three female judges: Irina Kolesnikova, Elena Maksimova and Elena Klinkova.
Posted by: db | February 13, 2007 2:21 AM
For me, the best sources on the Yukos saga are Peter Clateman, General Counsel of the Sputnik Group; Eric Kraus, an investment counselor; and Lucy Komisar, an investigative journalist based in NYC who specializes in offshore banking schemes and international money laundering.
Here is how I understand the indictment of Yukos. Making money through shell companies and tax evasion schemes had allowed Menatep, Yukos’ parent company grow ten fold in 3-4 years. It made sense to apply this same strategy on an international scale. The scheme was simple: Yukos would invest in extracting of crude oil from Yukos’ oldest, but proven wells, investing only what was necessary to maintain the pipelines and to keep the old wells pumping. At the same time Yukos lobbied heavily for tax exemptions for those specific production sites, and spent money to get its people into those governorships and key legislative positions, like the chairmanship of the Duma Tax Committee, that could make this happen. Combined, these factors made production costs seem very low, even by international standards.
These results were then shown to international accounting firms who, with the notable exception of Ernst & Young, certified that, indeed Yukos had few debts, minimal tax liabilities, was investing in infrastructure that would provide a steady product, and buying new fields for potential exploration. With a charismatic young engineer at its head, eager to sell his story, the company became a favorite among wealthy investors and western politicians. More good press only fed the frenzy.
It was all a sham–a strategy designed to project a high value that was not really there, in order to attract high profile western investors, then with their bona fides, to sell the company to major Western oil companies for a hefty profit. The profit were not there because the transfer of assets, and tax shell games had always been challenged by the State prosecutor's office as illegal, and by 2001 with its victory against Lukoil for backtaxes worth $200 million, then Vimpelcom for $619 million, and TNK-BP for $1 billion, it was obvious that the State's efforts to close these loopholes would only get stronger.
Flipping the company before the tax authorities got to Yukos was Khodorkovsky's publicly stated intention all along. His first negotiations in 1998, with Phillips Petroleum were derailed by the August banking crisis, but he persisted in his ultimate objective of, as he put it, getting out of business and into politics by his 45th birthday. The invasion of Iraq could not have come at a more propitious time. With the anticipated depletion of Iraqi supplies, Chevron and Texaco came knocking at Khorodovsky's door keener than ever to make a deal in the spring of 2003.
What made it strategy doubly attractive was that
Menatep's owners could always argue that a) they were just doing what scores of other businesses were doing; and b) they were doing what they knew how to do best, shifting assets to avoid taxes and generating revenue from the transfers. The thinking was that by the time western investors realized that the true value of what they owned was far less than they believed (because of double book keeping; potential tax liabilities they did not know existed; and fruitless oil fields), Khodorkovsky, Nevzlin and company would be long out of the picture, and any potential disputes over pipelines, investments and taxes would be between foreign owners and the Russian state.
Posted by: Nicolai Petro | February 13, 2007 1:35 PM
db - Wrong! There WAS a jury in the initial court case - the appeal was heard by a panel of 3 judges
Posted by: Gary Butner | February 13, 2007 5:53 PM
Kraus is a bit of a blowhard.
Posted by: Alexandra | February 13, 2007 6:30 PM
Gary Butner - Two different courts, two different panels of three judges each. The case itself was tried in the Meshchansky District Court of the City of Moscow (Irina Kolesnikova, Elena Maksimova, Elena Klinkova), the appeal was heard by the Moscow City Court (Vyacheslav Tarasov, Alexei Marinenko, Svetlana Lokhmachyova). There was never any jury.
Posted by: db | February 14, 2007 3:21 AM
I'll keep it short and sweet Yuri. We've got your oligarchs... whatcha gonna do about it? Please visit my country again soon. It's not our fault that you force Chechnya to be part of Russia. It's not our fault the KGB is trying to kill Suleiman Kerimov. If you only knew your government the way we do, and we do, you'd know why your people starve. You can't even print your opinions without someone shooting you in an elevator, or poisoning you, by the KGB. (I know it is called FSB now, but we always knew that is/has always been the KGB) You are permitted to speak because you are a propagandist who voices the opinions of a dictator, Vladimir Putin. He is not worth shit. Neither is Bush. The difference in you and I is... I'd rather starve than follow a tyrant like Bush... you on the other hand, feed from the hand of Putin because your people are weak in their hearts, whipped in their minds, and silenced by the KGB. The fact is that Putin gutted Yukos and the oligarchs ran to us. They are ours now. Forget about them. So, when Gazprom took its place, and Putin began to dislike Sulieman Kerimov's fascination with Western culture, he tried to kill him in Nice, France. Just like he killed Sasha Litvinenko. We are so inside Russia, Putin knows it, and sooner than later those around him will betray him. Like our Bush. Where we go from here... is up to our generation... I want to be friends, but can we? You decide.
Say hi to the teacher for us
Posted by: james brown | February 14, 2007 2:53 PM
db - You never furnish one piece of evidence for your statements. Indeed, I furnished two pieces showing Khodorkovsky had a jury trial, and one from his own website. Your mistranslation claim against his website lacks merit, because the article in English is very well written, and clearly shows evidence of being professionally translated. Please present evidence for your claim in English or Russian for everyone to examine for themselves.
Posted by: Gary Butner | February 14, 2007 8:38 PM
Gary Butner - So you think I just made all those names up, do you? Click here.
Posted by: db | February 15, 2007 11:58 AM
db - So what? I do not for a second doubt the names of 3 judges for each trial. Indeed, they are available on the Internet in many places. However, that is not evidence against a jury trial. I have shown you clear statements Khodorkovsky had a jury trial, and one from his own site. To say a professional translator on Khodorkovsky's site made a mistranslation is a wild stretch.
Posted by: Gary Butner | February 16, 2007 3:59 PM
db - So what? I do not for a second doubt the names of 3 judges for each trial. Indeed, they are available on the Internet in many places. However, that is not evidence against a jury trial. I have shown you clear statements Khodorkovsky had a jury trial, and one from his own site. To say a professional translator on Khodorkovsky's site made a mistranslation is a wild stretch.
Posted by: Gary Butner | February 16, 2007 7:51 PM
Gary Bunter - Three judges and jury are mutually exclusive.
Уголовно-процессуальный кодекс РФ, Статья 29, Статья 30:
2. Суд первой инстанции рассматривает уголовные дела в следующем составе:
1) судья федерального суда общей юрисдикции - уголовные дела о всех преступлениях, за исключением уголовных дел, указанных в пунктах 2-4 настоящей части;
2) судья федерального суда общей юрисдикции и коллегия из двенадцати присяжных заседателей - по ходатайству обвиняемого уголовные дела о преступлениях, указанных в части третьей статьи 31 настоящего Кодекса;
3) коллегия из трех судей федерального суда общей юрисдикции - уголовные дела о тяжких и особо тяжких преступлениях при наличии ходатайства обвиняемого, заявленного до назначения судебного заседания в соответствии со статьей 231 настоящего Кодекса;
4) мировой судья - уголовные дела, подсудные ему в соответствии с частью первой статьи 31 настоящего Кодекса.
http://www.garweb.ru/PROJECT/LAW/doc/12025178/12025178-006.htm#11505
Posted by: db | February 17, 2007 4:29 AM
i went through your site it gave good information on Thrive have this kind of another site you may go to this site for more information.
http://thrivenowblog.com/
Posted by: ravi | March 21, 2007 1:28 PM