Paul Manafort- Destroyer of Ukrainian Democracy

[Muzh]

I can only find, exacly ONE mention of Manafort on this forum, pre-Trump:

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=16536.msg345323#msg345323

It is a message from Boethius pointing out to LT that Yanuk was employing Americans (LT alleged that Yanuk, was anti-American).

Now, maybe the search engine is wrong and there were more mentions of him, but...

Manafort, no doubt one of several paid advisers to Yanuk, was never even mentioned on this board as anyone important to Ukraine, until after Trump chooses Manafort as one of his main political advisers.  Then Boethius, certainly entitled to have a political opinion as all of us are, posts this.

Boethius, are you not conversant to fluent in Ukrainian, Russian, and of course English?

You would have had Manafort on your radar long ago, due to mentions of him in the Ukr. or Russian press, well before any English-language sources of reporting had even had the chance to pick up the story. 

You have been reading / studying / getting on the ground updates about Maidan since it happened; but no mention of Manafort all this time?

You see how it looks, given you have made no secret of your disdain for Trump?

Keep searching because I do remember him being discussed.

[Slumba]

This is what I used in the search engine. 

If am willing to be shown as wrong, but show me the thread - maybe the search engine doesn't find everything.

[BillyB]

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=16536.msg345323#msg345323

It is a message from Boethius pointing out to LT that Yanuk was employing Americans (LT alleged that Yanuk, was anti-American).

So Yanu was accused of being Communist and anti American so Boe offered proof that Yanu hired an American as if he's not standing on the wrong side of the fence.

I took a look at Manafort's old Wiki article and in 2008 the article stated that Yanu fired Manafort as his advisor after the 2004 elections because Yanu did poorly. Now Trump hires Manafort and there are all kinds of new stuff written on Manafort in 2016 that implies he's in bed with Putin and is stealing from and starving millions of Ukrainians.

[Boethius]

It was litigated for four years. The judge also ruled that Tymoshenko had failed to adequately demonstrate that Manafort’s business dealings with Firtash constituted a conscious effort to abet intimidation and harassment against his political critics in Ukraine.

No, it wasn't litigated for years.  When it came before the court, it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  That is not the same as suggesting the case had no merit.  It just means the court refused to hear the case because the forum conveniens was not the United States.  It was Ukraine.

..."All of Manafort's personal fortune came after Yanukovych took power."...
That is what you posted and what I answered to. And even after your clarifying your statement the answer is still no. He was wealthy prior to his stint in Ukraine.

And this is illegal how?

Stealing Ukrainian state assets and laundering them through U.S. real estate is illegal.  Firtash is rich from stealing state assets (Russian gas paid for by Ukrainian state company Naftogaz).  Tymoshenko is rich in the same way.   That is what Manafort was doing. 

And my response is the same. Your link would not have been written and you wouldn't be posting this thread if Manafort were not Trump's campaign manager.

Irrelevant.  He has gained national attention because he is Trump's campaign manager.  I don't care about Trump.  My point is about Manafort.

Case in point: Tad Devine, who consulted on the Bernie Sanders campaign, also worked for Yanukovych in almost the same role as Manafort ...Not a word about him in the media.

Perhaps he didn't launder money for her. 

Because the premise of your link isn't true. It's just not based in fact. It's a smear designed to discredit an individual working for and by extension a political campaign/candidate you and the author of your article disagree with.

It is true Manafort purchased real estate with Firtash.


It is true Firtash is an oligarch.


It is true Firtash got rich stealing Ukrainian state assets.


It is true Manafort continues to work for Russian clients.


It is true that Yanukovych, and Firtash, are former Soviet nomenklatura.

Even the tone of your quoted comment betrays a certain bias and I dare say condescension;  I do not feel the need to protect Manafort. I would however debate a link or premise that is designed to malign an individual especially when there is nothing to substantiate the allegations.

See above.  Yes, I am biased against the former nomenklatura and the former KGB, both of whom are guilty of massive damage to the souls of millions, and who continue to wreak havoc on millions of ordinary individuals in Russia and Ukraine.  So sue me if I find those willing to work with this scum less than palatable.

[Boethius]

I can only find, exacly ONE mention of Manafort on this forum, pre-Trump:

http://www.russianwomendiscussion.com/index.php?topic=16536.msg345323#msg345323

It is a message from Boethius pointing out to LT that Yanuk was employing Americans (LT alleged that Yanuk, was anti-American).

Now, maybe the search engine is wrong and there were more mentions of him, but...

Manafort, no doubt one of several paid advisers to Yanuk, was never even mentioned on this board as anyone important to Ukraine, until after Trump chooses Manafort as one of his main political advisers.  Then Boethius, certainly entitled to have a political opinion as all of us are, posts this.

Boethius, are you not conversant to fluent in Ukrainian, Russian, and of course English?

You would have had Manafort on your radar long ago, due to mentions of him in the Ukr. or Russian press, well before any English-language sources of reporting had even had the chance to pick up the story. 

You have been reading / studying / getting on the ground updates about Maidan since it happened; but no mention of Manafort all this time?

You see how it looks, given you have made no secret of your disdain for Trump?

The press in Ukraine did not focus on American advisors, but all of Ukraine's politicians use them.


No one in Ukraine reported on Manafort's business interests with Ukrainian oligarchs.  That is what is important here.

[jone]

Sorry Boe. 

I ain't buying it.  You brought out Manafort to belittle Trump.  You totally ignored my James Carville reference as it didn't appeal to your sense of justice even though they produced a major motion picture about it.  Then you told us all how Anne Applebaum was representative of an unbiased perspective on Eastern Europe.  Now we see Anne Applebaum's Clinton endorsement two days ago in the Washington Post.  If the troops aren't flying the liberal flag, you aren't saluting them. 

Now, having said that, I despise Trump's idea of recognizing Crimea.  I have no stomach for him ignoring the plight of Ukraine.  His limited knowledge of these issues demonstrates that he has a lot to learn before becoming commander of the US armed forces (if he ever makes it). 

[Boethius]

Oh, so now you are a mind reader?

Believe me, my post had zero to do with Donald Trump.  If I wanted to belittle Trump, I would do so directly.  AFAIK, Paul Manafort was not working for Trump when he was laundering money for Ukrainian oligarchs.

When James Carville starts laundering funds for Ukrainian oligarchs, or if that is disclosed, I'll open a thread about him.

[Boethius]

I find it somewhat humorous that posters want to turn this into yet another useless U.S. politics thread.

The point is that here is about the character of an individual who made deals with ruthless "businessmen", the latter of whom:

(a)  two decades ago, were devoted commies, KGB officers, and komsomol members rallying against capitalism and calling for fighting the "endless war" until capitalism was finally "vanquished"; and
(b)got rich not from producing anything of value, or in providing anything creative or useful, but by stealing state assets, and settling their disputes by rubbing out their opponents.

Those "businessmen" have been fighting to launder their assets out of Ukraine for two decades.  The EU was closed to them.  The U.S. largely was as well.  Why do you think Ukrainian real estate prices were so high?  And then, you get some dubious American facilitating that money laundering via U.S. real estate.   How is this any different from being in bed with drug dealers?    This is who you are defending.

[jone]

Oh, so now you are a mind reader?

Believe me, my post had zero to do with Donald Trump.  If I wanted to belittle Trump, I would do so directly.  AFAIK, Paul Manafort was not working for Trump when he was laundering money for Ukrainian oligarchs.

When James Carville starts laundering funds for Ukrainian oligarchs, or if that is disclosed, I'll open a thread about him.

Impossible to prove intent, Counselor.  So we just look at the evidence.   

[Boethius]

Actually, no, it is not impossible to prove intent.  Were that the case, there would be no criminal convictions.


I know why I posted it.  I don't care one way or the other who wins the U.S. election.  Neither candidate will affect how I, or my family, lives and therefore, is irrelevant to me.  But as a diaspora Ukrainian with relatives living across that country, the future of Ukraine is extremely important to me.

[LiveFromUkraine]

Impossible to prove intent, Counselor.  So we just look at the evidence.   

I took you at your word when you told me you didn't have the intention of shutting down pitbull.  I accepted it and even apologized.  I didn't see why you would lie about your intention.  I don't know why you can't accept Bo's statement like I accepted yours.

[jone]

I took you at your word when you told me you didn't have the intention of shutting down pitbull.  I accepted it and even apologized.  I didn't see why you would lie about your intention.  I don't know why you can't accept Bo's statement like I accepted yours.

Yup.  I can.  And will.  That last post was just a little fun, anyway. 

[Slumba]

Boethius, I am not attacking you ... just pointing out that is kind of "convenient" that we are hearing about Manafort now that he is advising a Presidential candidate; and we didn't hear about him before.

[BillyB]

No one in Ukraine reported on Manafort's business interests with Ukrainian oligarchs.  That is what is important here.

Manafort didn't come to Ukraine with the idea of ripping off the country. An oligarch was looking for a man for a job and an American law firm recommended Manafort. If Manafort was never recommended, the man chosen may have been someone else. As fate had it, Manafort got the call and took the job. Later the oligarch recommended Yanu to hire Manfort for his presidential campaign. Yanu did poorly in the 2004 election since he didn't like to follow good advice and fired Manafort as the scapegoat according to the article below that was written by a Ukrainian news source in 2007. Of course later Yanu hires Manafort again and succeeded in getting elected president. Manafort watch Yanu in action and as your first article states, he grew disillusioned with Yanu. If Manafort is the monster you claim he is, he wouldn't have a conscience. Sometimes I wonder how lawyers can sleep well at night representing real monsters but you guys say they have a right to representation and the assumption of innocence. So far no government has concluded Manafort belongs in prison.

http://www.unian.info/politics/66507-yanukovych-sacked-his-american-spin-doctor.html

Believe me, my post had zero to do with Donald Trump.  If I wanted to belittle Trump, I would do so directly.  AFAIK, Paul Manafort was not working for Trump when he was laundering money for Ukrainian oligarchs.

You happened to choose an article that only came out because of Trump. It fails to mention the right reasons Trump would hire Manafort. You failed to choose an article on Manfort that doesn't mention Trump. You failed to choose an article that shows Manaforts work for good people. The article talks all bad about Manafort except when they state Manafort became disillusioned with Yanu. The article leaves it's readers believing Trump hired a man that did business with corrupt people and is in bed with Putin and his cronies. The article leaves it's readers believing Trump likes Putin because people reading the NY Times article isn't interested in Manafort at all. There's no doubt in my mind Trump hired Manafort because he successfully worked on the campaigns of 4 previous POTUS, including Reagan's. The authors of the article conveniently left that out when talking about Manafort's history.

[Boethius]

Boethius, I am not attacking you ... just pointing out that is kind of "convenient" that we are hearing about Manafort now that he is advising a Presidential candidate; and we didn't hear about him before.

The convenience comes via the American press, not me.  Manafort has been the subject of criticism in the past, for his lobbying efforts on behalf of the who's who of dictators and shady leaders.

http://cloudfront-files-1.publicintegrity.org/legacy_projects/pdf_reports/THETORTURERSLOBBY.pdf

But the U.S. press wasn't interested in this history in the past.  Had the NYT reported on Manafort's business dealings with Ukrainian oligarchs 2 years ago, I would have posted a link then.

[BillyB]

Manafort has been the subject of criticism in the past, for his lobbying efforts on behalf of the who's who of dictators and shady leaders.

http://cloudfront-files-1.publicintegrity.org/legacy_projects/pdf_reports/THETORTURERSLOBBY.pdf

As your link shows, Manafort made millions for lobbying on behalf of shady leaders in the 90's. He became rich. But you have to remember the Clinton administration gave many more millions to those shady leaders. Manafort can discuss the shady leaders causes but ultimately our government under Clinton felt the causes were just. A shady leader may be torturing his political foes but America may be interested in dealing with that leader if he's a strong anti Communist or anti terrorism and advances America's interest. For every dollar Manafort received from shady leaders, Bill Clinton gave those shady leaders thousands. For every dollar Manafort received from people in the FSU close to Putin, the Clinton foundation received thousands.

[Brasscasing]

No, it wasn't litigated for years.  When it came before the court, it was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  That is not the same as suggesting the case had no merit.  It just means the court refused to hear the case because the forum conveniens was not the United States.  It was Ukraine.

..."Yulia Tymoshenko. She accused Manafort and others of funneling money into the United States to help pay Ukrainian prosecutors and supporters of Viktor Yanukovych who in 2010 narrowly defeated Tymoshenko to become Ukraine’s president. After four years of litigation, the lawsuit was dismissed in 2015 by a Manhattan federal judge. Attorneys denied Manafort had any involvement."...

lawnewz.com

And a Judge also ruling that Tymoshenko had failed to adequately demonstrate that Manafort’s business dealings with Firtash constituted a conscious effort to abet intimidation and harassment against his political critics in Ukraine is exactly suggesting the case had no merit. Not "It just means the court refused to hear the case because the forum conveniens was not the United States."

I'd be interested in reading your sources you have to back up your assertions because all the articles I'm looking at say four years litigation and a failure to demonstrate any intent to aid or abet.

Stealing Ukrainian state assets and laundering them through U.S. real estate is illegal.  Firtash is rich from stealing state assets (Russian gas paid for by Ukrainian state company Naftogaz).  Tymoshenko is rich in the same way.   That is what Manafort was doing. 

Evidence?

Irrelevant.  He has gained national attention because he is Trump's campaign manager.  I don't care about Trump.  My point is about Manafort.

No it's not irrelevant. I believe your link and this thread exist directly as a result of Manafort being Trump's campaign manager.

Perhaps he didn't launder money for her. 

A non answer. Levine worked for Yanukovych as Manafort did. My comment was Tad Levine who consulted on the Bernie Sanders campaign, also worked for Yanukovych in almost the same role as Manafort ...Not a word about him in the media.

Why is Levine and other Americans who worked for Yanukovych not being scrutinized as Manafort all of a sudden is?

It is true Manafort purchased real estate with Firtash.


It is true Firtash is an oligarch.


It is true Firtash got rich stealing Ukrainian state assets.


It is true Manafort continues to work for Russian clients.


It is true that Yanukovych, and Firtash, are former Soviet nomenklatura.

And once again...If there is any evidence what so ever linking Manafort to any illegal activity in Ukraine I can't find it. Maybe you can post some links because as far as I can tell none of what you've posted regarding Manafort can be substantiated.

See above.  Yes, I am biased against the former nomenklatura and the former KGB, both of whom are guilty of massive damage to the souls of millions, and who continue to wreak havoc on millions of ordinary individuals in Russia and Ukraine.  So sue me if I find those willing to work with this scum less than palatable.

I'd say your bias is misplaced and wasted on someone (Manafort) who  as far as I can tell was not involved in the damage to the souls of millions.

At the very least Manafort is certainly is not the "Destroyer of Ukrainian Democracy" as your subject title purports.

Brass

[BillyB]

Levine worked for Yanukovych as Manafort did. My comment was Tad Levine who consulted on the Bernie Sanders campaign, also worked for Yanukovych in almost the same role as Manafort ...Not a word about him in the media.

Why is Levine and other Americans who worked for Yanukovych not being scrutinized as Manafort all of a sudden is?

If you go to Wikipedia and read about Levine and Manafort, they led similar paths in life, helped various leaders around the world improve their image and get them elected. The difference is Levine is a Democrat and Manafort is a Republican.

This kind of bias reporting from the media works with stupid people. It happened again yesterday. A story broke out that Obama secretly send $400 million dollars to Iran that was under sanctions in January. Obama isn't even denying that happened although he disagrees it was done for the exchange of 4 hostages. Although Obama doesn't deny he sent $400 million, if you Google the story with ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, none of them have picked up the story. They want their readers/viewers to continue to think Obama and the Democrats can't do anything wrong.

[BC]

This kind of bias reporting from the media works with stupid people. It happened again yesterday. A story broke out that Obama secretly send $400 million dollars to Iran that was under sanctions in January. Obama isn't even denying that happened although he disagrees it was done for the exchange of 4 hostages. Although Obama doesn't deny he sent $400 million, if you Google the story with ABC, NBC, CBS, and CNN, none of them have picked up the story. They want their readers/viewers to continue to think Obama and the Democrats can't do anything wrong.

I'll ask the same thing I asked FP in the other thread regarding his opinion on media..  Isn't it such democratic?

[Muzh]

Actually, no, it is not impossible to prove intent.  Were that the case, there would be no criminal convictions.


I know why I posted it.  I don't care one way or the other who wins the U.S. election.  Neither candidate will affect how I, or my family, lives and therefore, is irrelevant to me.  But as a diaspora Ukrainian with relatives living across that country, the future of Ukraine is extremely important to me.

Hey Counselor, I think you'll love this article I found the other day. It tries to clarify intent in the best of examples. 


http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/law-professors-epic-response-to-black-lives-matter-shirt-complaint/

[Boethius]

Hey Counselor, I think you'll love this article I found the other day. It tries to clarify intent in the best of examples. 


http://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/law-professors-epic-response-to-black-lives-matter-shirt-complaint/

Thanks.  That was epic.

[Boethius]

..."Yulia Tymoshenko. She accused Manafort and others of funneling money into the United States to help pay Ukrainian prosecutors and supporters of Viktor Yanukovych who in 2010 narrowly defeated Tymoshenko to become Ukraine’s president. After four years of litigation, the lawsuit was dismissed in 2015 by a Manhattan federal judge. Attorneys denied Manafort had any involvement."...lawnewz.comAnd a Judge also ruling that Tymoshenko had failed to adequately demonstrate that Manafort’s business dealings with Firtash constituted a conscious effort to abet intimidation and harassment against his political critics in Ukraine is exactly suggesting the case had no merit. Not "It just means the court refused to hear the case because the forum conveniens was not the United States."

No decision was made on the triable issue.  The matter was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

I'd be interested in reading your sources you have to back up your assertions because all the articles I'm looking at say four years litigation and a failure to demonstrate any intent to aid or abet.

Evidence?

My source is the judgment(s) itself.  It is on a subscription only site.

IMHO, the lawsuit was never about assets.  It was about Tymoshenko's arrest and detention.  The assets were added as an allegation in an attempt to bring the lawsuit under RICO, thereby giving U.S. courts jurisdiction.  But in essence, the lawsuit was attempting to get a U.S. court to interfere in domestic Ukrainian criminal law (charges against Tymoshenko).  That is why it was dismissed.  How could a U.S. court make any determination about Tymoshenko's arrest by Ukrainian prosecutors?

At the same time that this lawsuit was launched, Tymoshenko also launched litigation in the EU's human rights court.  That court did find in Tymoshenko's favour.

Frankly, I believe Tymoshenko was told by her legal advisors at the outset that the lawsuit would be dismissed.  The purpose of that lawsuit was not to obtain the relief sought.  It was to keep the issue of her detention in the media/public eye.

No it's not irrelevant. I believe your link and this thread exist directly as a result of Manafort being Trump's campaign manager.

What you think is your choice.  Until you are able to get into my head you cannot know my intention in starting this thread.  But I will repeat it.  I do not give a (pardon the bad language)  f##k who wins the U.S. election.  Do I like Trump?  No, because he is a misogynist who appeals to the worst, rather than the best, in people.  If Americans decide that they want that type of individual to lead their nation, that is their choice.  It will not affect my daily life in any way whatsoever.  It will not affect my healthcare, my ability to read books and online materials, my ability to take long walks, to cook for my family, to spend time with my husband, or to be involved in my community. 

As I have posted, had I wanted to have yet another political thread, I would have opened this in NHB.  So please do not suggest that I don't know why I started this thread.

A non answer. Levine worked for Yanukovych as Manafort did. My comment was Tad Levine who consulted on the Bernie Sanders campaign, also worked for Yanukovych in almost the same role as Manafort ...Not a word about him in the media.

I repeat.  Did Levine launder money for Ukrainian oligarchs? 

"Non answer" means "I don't like your answer".

Why is Levine and other Americans who worked for Yanukovych not being scrutinized as Manafort all of a sudden is?

Because (a) Manafort has a long history of lobbying for corrupt dictators and regimes; and (b) Manafort has made business deals with both Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs, all of whom are attempting to launder their money to secure it.

If you believe Mr. Levine's work in Ukraine is worthy of a thread, go ahead and open a thread devoted to him.  I am not Fox News, and therefore am not required to be "fair and balanced" in choosing thread topics.

Manafort also started a company, Pericles Emerging Markets Partners, which was used as an offshore vehicle to launder money for oligarchs such as Oleg Deripaska, who is prohibited from investing in the U.S. (and was at the time Pericles as established) because of Deripaska's links to organized crime. 

And once again...If there is any evidence what so ever linking Manafort to any illegal activity in Ukraine I can't find it. Maybe you can post some links because as far as I can tell none of what you've posted regarding Manafort can be substantiated.

I didn't say what Manafort did in Ukraine was illegal.  I said it was immoral.

I'd say your bias is misplaced and wasted on someone (Manafort) who  as far as I can tell was not involved in the damage to the souls of millions.

When you are involved in aiding oligarchs who have become rich by stealing a nation's wealth move their money abroad, then yes, you are damaging the souls of the millions of Ukrainians who paid for those assets.  Because those millions lack adequate healthcare, education, and even food due to the theft of their state's wealth, aided and abetted by immoral Westerners.

At the very least Manafort is certainly is not the "Destroyer of Ukrainian Democracy" as your subject title purports.

He used his influence with Yanukovych's regime to benefit his clients (such as Cargill) at the expense of the average Ukrainian.

He remade the image of a former KGB officer (well, a related organization) and helped get him elected.  Whether he knew that individual would trample the rights of Ukrainians, dismiss judges and replace them with his handpicked cronies, clamp down on freedom of the press (Ukraine's media was always free, and, since Yanukovych, it is now largely controlled by oligarchs), and order the shooting of demonstrators on Maidan is irrelevant.  The end result was that Ukrainian democracy was badly damaged during the presidency of Yanukovych, and Paul Manafort had a hand in achieving those results.

[krimster2]

here's a link to the lawsuit

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/manafort-complaint-2.pdf

[Boethius]

Here are headnotes on dismissal of the claim -

Filed:9/18/2015
OPINION AND ORDER: Given that this is now Plaintiffs' fourth unsuccessful attempt to plead RICO claims, and given that the changes in the TAC fail to remedy the deficiencies found in the SAC, the Court declines to grant Plaintiffs yet another opportunity to amend their pleadings. When further amendment is likely to be futile, leave to amend need not be granted. See De Jesus v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 87 F.3d 65, 72 (2d Cir. 1996) ("Plaintiffs were accorded four opportunities to plead their claims in this case, and the deficiencies in their federal claims are fundamental. The district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing them a fifth opportunity." (internal citations omitted)); see also Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer & Co., 987 F.2d 129, 131; BNP Paribas Mortgage Corp. v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 09 Civ. 9783, 2013 WL 6484727, at 6* (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 9, 2013) (Sweet, J.). The changes from the SAC to the TAC are largely superficial or irrelevant and have not remedied the fundamental defects identified by this Court in Tymoshenko II. For the foregoing reasons, the TAC is dismissed . The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. (As further set forth in this Order) (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 9/18/2015) (kl) Modified on 9/18/2015 (kl). (Entered: 09/18/2015)

Filed: 8/28/2013
OPINION & ORDER re: #103574 66 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and For Failure to State a Claim filed by Nadra Bank. For the foregoing reasons, Nadra Bank's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint is GRANTED,  as to Plaintiffs' ATS claim and  with respect to Plaintiffs' RICO claim. This Opinion resolves Docket Entry 66. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 8/28/2013) (lmb) Modified on 9/16/2013 (sdi). (Entered: 08/28/2013)


Filed: 3/28/2013
OPINION & ORDER: The Court GRANTS Defendant RUE's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. [Dkt. No. 56]. Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed . (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 3/26/2013)

Filed: 3/27/2013
OPINION & ORDER: #103054 The Court GRANTS Defendant RUE's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims for lack of personal jurisdiction. [Dkt. No. 56]. Plaintiffs' claims are dismissed . (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 3/26/2013) (ft) Modified on 4/1/2013 (jab). (Entered: 03/27/2013)

Filed: 4/18/2013
ORDER: The Court denies Tymoshenko's motion for several reasons, not least of which is that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the Ukrainian government. Tymoshenko has also entirely failed to suggest her claim has any likelihood of success on the merits. First, Tymoshenko has failed to demonstrate why the interrogation of Kyrychenko is at all related to her civil claims. Second, contrary to Tymoshenko's assertion, the Treaty includes no affirmative mandate to notify the DOJ about a pending investigation. Rather, the Treaty supplies procedures for requesting assistance in foreign proceedings; it does not require Ukraine to involve the DOJ in Ukrainian criminal investigations involving witnesses located on U.S. soil Consequently, Tymoshenko's request for a TRO is DENIED. (Signed by Judge Kimba M. Wood on 4/18/2013) (ft) Modified on 4/18/2013 (ft). (Entered: 04/18/2013)

http://ecf.nysd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/show_doc.pl?caseid=378317&de_seq_num=426&dm_id=13666325&doc_num=118

[Brasscasing]

No decision was made on the triable issue.  The matter was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.


My source is the judgment(s) itself.  It is on a subscription only site.

I'm sorry but this is simply not true on both counts...

The transcript...

www.leagle.com

The judgment...

YULIA TYMOSHENKO and JOHN DOES 1 through 50, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DMYTRO FIRTASH, et al., Defendants.


United States District Court, S.D. New York.

March 26, 2013.

KIMBA M. WOOD, District Judge.

Former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko ("Tymoshenko") brings this action on behalf of herself and other former government officials (collectively, "Plaintiffs") for arbitrary detention and political persecution, allegedly in violation of their human rights. Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint ("AC") alleges claims under the Alien Tort Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1350 ("ATS"), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 ("RICO"), and state law for breach of fiduciary duty and malicious prosecution. [Dkt. No. 23]. Defendants include Ukrainian government officials and corporations (collectively, "the Ukrainian Defendants"), as well as individuals and corporations based in the United States, including CMZ Ventures, LLC ("CMZ"), the Dynamic Group ("Dynamic"), Barbara Ann Holdings, LLC ("BAH"), Vulcan Properties, Inc. ("Vulcan"), and individuals Paul Manafort ("Manafort") and Brad Zackson ("Zackson") (collectively, the "U.S. Defendants").

Presently before the Court is the U.S. Defendants' motion to dismiss the AC pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).1 [Dkt. Nos. 44, 50]. For the following reasons, the U.S. Defendants' motion is GRANTED.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient "to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A claim is facially plausible when the factual allegations "allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft, 556 U.S. at 678. Where a plaintiff has failed to "nudge" a claim "across the line from conceivable to plausible," a district court must dismiss the complaint.

IMHO, the lawsuit was never about assets.  It was about Tymoshenko's arrest and detention.  The assets were added as an allegation in an attempt to bring the lawsuit under RICO, thereby giving U.S. courts jurisdiction.  But in essence, the lawsuit was attempting to get a U.S. court to interfere in domestic Ukrainian criminal law (charges against Tymoshenko).  That is why it was dismissed.  How could a U.S. court make any determination about Tymoshenko's arrest by Ukrainian prosecutors?

At the same time that this lawsuit was launched, Tymoshenko also launched litigation in the EU's human rights court.  That court did find in Tymoshenko's favour.[/font]

Frankly, I believe Tymoshenko was told by her legal advisors at the outset that the lawsuit would be dismissed.  The purpose of that lawsuit was not to obtain the relief sought.  It was to keep the issue of her detention in the media/public eye.

None of this has anything to do with Paul Manafort. If you believe this why did you post all the derogatory remarks about Manafort under this subject title in the first place?

What you think is your choice.  Until you are able to get into my head you cannot know my intention in starting this thread.  But I will repeat it.  I do not give a (pardon the bad language)  f##k who wins the U.S. election.  Do I like Trump?  No, because he is a misogynist who appeals to the worst, rather than the best, in people.  If Americans decide that they want that type of individual to lead their nation, that is their choice.  It will not affect my daily life in any way whatsoever.  It will not affect my healthcare, my ability to read books and online materials, my ability to take long walks, to cook for my family, to spend time with my husband, or to be involved in my community. 

As I have posted, had I wanted to have yet another political thread, I would have opened this in NHB.  So please do not suggest that I don't know why I started this thread. [/font]

I repeat.  Did Levine launder money for Ukrainian oligarchs? 

"Non answer" means "I don't like your answer".



Because (a) Manafort has a long history of lobbying for corrupt dictators and regimes; and (b) Manafort has made business deals with both Ukrainian and Russian oligarchs, all of whom are attempting to launder their money to secure it.

If you believe Mr. Levine's work in Ukraine is worthy of a thread, go ahead and open a thread devoted to him.  I am not Fox News, and therefore am not required to be "fair and balanced" in choosing thread topics.

Manafort also started a company, Pericles Emerging Markets Partners, which was used as an offshore vehicle to launder money for oligarchs such as Oleg Deripaska, who is prohibited from investing in the U.S. (and was at the time Pericles as established) because of Deripaska's links to organized crime. 



I didn't say what Manafort did in Ukraine was illegal.  I said it was immoral.


When you are involved in aiding oligarchs who have become rich by stealing a nation's wealth move their money abroad, then yes, you are damaging the souls of the millions of Ukrainians who paid for those assets.  Because those millions lack adequate healthcare, education, and even food due to the theft of their state's wealth, aided and abetted by immoral Westerners.


He used his influence with Yanukovych's regime to benefit his clients (such as Cargill) at the expense of the average Ukrainian.

He remade the image of a former KGB officer (well, a related organization) and helped get him elected.  Whether he knew that individual would trample the rights of Ukrainians, dismiss judges and replace them with his handpicked cronies, clamp down on freedom of the press (Ukraine's media was always free, and, since Yanukovych, it is now largely controlled by oligarchs), and order the shooting of demonstrators on Maidan is irrelevant.  The end result was that Ukrainian democracy was badly damaged during the presidency of Yanukovych, and Paul Manafort had a hand in achieving those results.

This is just a long winded way of saying you support Hillary. If you read the Complaint (which I can also link) as it relates to the US defendants and the Judgment you'll find much of what you've posted as supporting your assertions either doesn't exist in the original complaint or was part of the dismissal in the judgment.

Brass

Edit:

At the same time that this lawsuit was launched, Tymoshenko also launched litigation in the EU's human rights court.  That court did find in Tymoshenko's favour.[/font]

Looking up this judgement it has absolutely nothing to do with the case brought in the US courts...

..."Former Prime Minister of Ukraine was arbitrarily detained

In today’s Chamber judgment in the case of Tymoshenko v. Ukraine (application
no. 49872/11), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held,
unanimously, that there had been:
a violation of Article 5 § 1 (right to liberty and security) of the European
Convention on Human Rights;
a violation of Article 5 § 4 (right to a speedy review of the lawfulness of
detention);
a violation of Article 5 § 5 (right to compensation for unlawful detention);
a violation of Article 18 (limitation on use of restrictions on rights) in conjunction
with Article 5;
and it held, by a majority, that there had been no violation of Article 3 (prohibition
of inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment) in respect of Ms Tymoshenko’s
alleged ill-treatment during her transfer to hospital on 20 April 2012 and the
effectiveness of the investigation of those complaints.
The case concerned complaints related to the detention of the former Ukrainian Prime
Minister Yuliya Tymoshenko.
The Court held in particular: that Ms Tymoshenko’s pre-trial detention had been
arbitrary; that the lawfulness of her detention had not been properly reviewed; and, that
she had no possibility to seek compensation for her unlawful deprivation of liberty.
The Court also found that, given that the judge had referred to her alleged hindering of
the proceedings and contemptuous behaviour, her right to liberty had been restricted for
other reasons than those permissible under Article 5."...

This is a pdf library file ....  hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id