So, the Wall Street Journal is reporting that a court aide to the judge in the trial of former OAO Yukos chairman and CEO Mikhail Khodorkovsky has admitted that the judge was forced to render a verdict in the case that was different from the one that he had drafted.
As the WSJ article notes righteously:
“Everyone in the judicial community understands perfectly that this is a rigged case, a fixed trial,” said [the aide],adding that she had decided to go public with her allegations because she had become disillusioned with the judicial system.
[The aide’s] claims support the widespread view that the latest trial of Mr. Khodorkovsky, once Russia’s richest man and the former owner of oil giant OAO Yukos, was politically motivated. Kremlin officials have repeatedly denied those allegations.
But courts in several countries in Europe have ruled in related cases that the prosecution of Mr. Khodorkovsky and the court-ordered breakup of Yukos appeared driven by the Kremlin’s desire to scotch Mr. Khodorkovsky’s political ambitions and nationalize his company.
Bad stuff, indeed.
However, is what happened to Khodorkovsky really all that much different than what happened to former Enron CEO Jeff Skilling right here in the good ol’ USA? At least Khodorkovsky is scheduled to be released from prison in 2017. Skilling is currently scheduled to be released around 2030!
And let’s just say that the WSJ was a healthy tad less righteous in its reporting on the misconduct that took place in Skilling’s trial than it is with regard to the hijinks that went on in Khodorkovsky’s.
Frankly, I don’t know what is sadder. That the Skilling case makes the U.S. justice system look much like the kangaroo court that convicted Khodorkovsky in Russia, or that the U.S.’s leading business newspaper still doesn’t recognize the similarity.
“That the Skilling case makes the U.S. justice system look much like the kangaroo court that convicted Khodorkovsky in Russia, or that the U.S.’s leading business newspaper still doesn’t recognize the similarity.”
The U.S. system of justice (sic) is as corrupt as most others in the modern world. Ask anyone who has been in it – but don’t worry baby. Everything will turn out all right for Jeffery boy. Scalia & company will take care of him in due time. Then, he and his questionably-obtained millions can give lectures to the Cato group, AEI, Harvard Business School etc.
Hi Bill,
You sound paranoid. For what its worth, Ruth Ginsberg authored Skilling’s Supreme Court ruling. And since they’ve already ruled, there is a high likelihood that the case is out of their hands now. Though some cases have appeared twice before the Supreme Court, it is rare indeed, and this case promises to be a perfect example of that.
Jeff’s millions are his business, not yours. I’m personally fed up with people who rant like lunatics without giving any examples of what they’re pissed off about. You say “questionably attained millions” but give rise to no questions at all. You indicate with your hysteria about Scalia and Cato and AEI that this is some kind of right-wing conspiracy but you lack the intellectual prowess to carry the thought to its natural conclusions.
In short, if you can’t make an cogent argument, just shut up because you sound like a paranoid moron.
Cheers,
Cara
Tom,
As you well know, I have not doubt the U.S. federal courts are absolutely corrupt (if you accept the definition of corruption as a judge rendering a decision they know not to be based on legal precedent or the rule of law and doing so in full knowledge of the responsibilitis they have accepted and their oath as a jurist for purposes other than arriving at a fair and impartial rendering of justice). For those who wonder why I have arrived at my opinion, I encourage them to e-mail me.
One thing that amazes me is that corruption in the federal courts is accepted by most legal prectioners because they have figured out how to carve out a niche (and a comfortable living) in the system. As long as they are getting theirs, most legal professionals seem comfortable looking the other way and remaining silent about the problem of corruption. Appellate judges can tell when a District judge has rendered a decision based on bad law and, at least on occasion, they seem to defer to the District judge’s motivations rather than to apply the rule of law.
Personally, I am not sure what is more offensive, that the federal courts are corrupt or that the vast majority of legal professionals are ok with the fact that the federal courts are corrupt.
If you think the Skilling case makes the U.S. justice system look like a Kangaroo Court. You should have had to set through the Walton, Phillips and Brooks trial in Harmons court.