Meanwhile, in Russia...

[mumon]

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/01/international/europe/01LEGA.html?hp

"What Chance Justice Is Done? Russia's System Is Questioned"

Anton V. Drel arrived at the grim Mastrosskaya Tishina prison here last Saturday and signed the papers declaring him the official counsel of Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, Russia's richest tycoon. Then a prosecutor presented Mr. Drel with a summons to be questioned as a witness.

"Even in the Soviet Union, that never happened," he said.



Lets stop right there...My developer and about 230+ homeowners are involved in a potential litigation. I assure you that the developer's attorney will get EXACTLY the same treatment; he's engaged in conflicts of interest, he's apparently aided and abetted a fraudulent scheme, etc... Looks like justice to me.

Few here believe he does — even the deputy chairman of President Vladimir V. Putin's advisory committee on the judiciary, Sergei E. Vitsin. "I would say there are more features of political games here than of justice," he said in an interview.

Mr. Putin has often called for cementing the rule of law in Russia, but the Khodorkovsky investigation has underscored just how far short the country is of that goal


Few here believe that Ken Lay is innocent, and it's really, really hard to believe that any Russian billionaire didn't get that way through graft and corruption.

A really "liberal" piece from the "liberal" NYT.

[ShaneGR]

1. Huh?

So you don't believe in attorney-client privilige? I thought the right to a good defense was a liberal value. It is to me.

[mumon]

2. Even in the US, privilge only goes so far...

If an attorney is advising a client how to continue a criminal racket, that's not protected by attorney-client privilege.

In fact, it would be grounds for disbarrment.

On edit: furthermore, an attorney in such a case would be ethically bound not to represent his "client," since there would be obvious conflicts of interest among the attorney's saving his own skin, the attorney's duty as a officer of the court, and his ability to "represent" his client.

[mikehiggins]

3. Its NOT the US, for pete's sake.

Despite Bush locating Putin's soul and basing his foriegn policy on that announcement, the fact is that Russia is NOT part of the United States and does not operate under our Constitution. In Russia, basically, your rights are what the government says they are.

When the ex-head of the KGB is the President, things are a lot different.

Putin is a brilliant, if evil, man and he's not about to let a lot of platitudes about "liberal democracy" derail his plans, anymore than the rulers of modern China will.

These people are literally playing the fools in Washington like, well, fools, which I guess is pretty appropriate at that. For all the happy horseshit about "free trade" and "globalization" that belches from the Oval Office, these folk know exactly what's up and aren't at all nervous about demonstrating that when its necessary.

The big K oversteps his bounds? He goes to jail.

His lawyer wants to play Johnnie Cochran? He goes to jail.

And so on and so forth.

So far the Russians haven't made the incredible mistake this country did in making beleive a corporation was a person in its own right. They figure if the company does something they don't like, arrest the folks running it.

At that, its an improvement. In the good old days K would have a bullet in his head by now, and be buried in the same grave as his lawyer.

Hey, I guess Putin does have a soul at that.

So far.