Jump to content


Joy Womack has left the Bolshoialleges corruption


  • Please log in to reply
274 replies to this topic

#106 puppytreats

puppytreats

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 751 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 01:55 PM

 

 

 

Gosh, does any first year in a big firm do anything other than review documents in a conference room or sit  in a library doing research?  Who on earth would expect to let a first year, untrained and billing at the lowest rate, conduct a trial?  I can't even imagine wanting to do such a thing.


Yet those first years often have three years of reviewing documents and sitting in a library doing research during their minimum 80-hour/week summer internships during law school, were editors of their Law Reviews, and were mentored not only by the best academic legal minds, but also by teachers with years of actual experience in some law schools. If they can't expect more than anonymous scut work as a first year, why would a newly minted member of the corps at the equivalents of Skadden, Arps, et. al. expect special opportunities?
 

 

Yes, this is why I find the statements about impatience and entitlement to obtain solo roles to be a bit too neat.  Sure, no one likes sitting in the dungeon reviewing documents, and everyone sits around complaining and whining.  Except for people who have connections and money, a special relationship with the client, or unusual experience and talent (e.g.,  a family of trial attorneys or a first year who had a prior career doing something significant), I did not think anyone in a big firm thought it would be any different.  I thought people who wanted early trial experience typically go to the DA office or a small firm. Some people leave big firms to get more training, experience, and responsibility at an earlier stage in their career, but that is not typically a scandal, nor are the grumblings about it considered a scandal typically.  Saying bad things about a prior employer would be imprudent, but is it even a bad thing to say one did not conduct a trial in year one or had to do grunt work? 



#107 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,219 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:01 PM

It is usually considered a bad career move to complain about one's employers through social media that can be seen by one's employer. (There are companies that ask potential employees for their Facebook passwords -- a breach of the Facebook's T&C's -- so that they can read private posts, while Twitter is all public-facing.) If a first year went to the NYT to say that the only reason he or she wasn't put on a trial was that s/he was expected to pay $10K for the opportunity, I would think his or her employer would consider that bad enough to fire the first year and possibly respond through the courts. Being interviewed for an article on what a lawyer's first year was like, not so much. Womack didn't just complain about having to stand on one foot for six minutes during Act II of "Swan Lake" in the course of a standard interview. She made a number of accusations to the press about her employer.



#108 lmspear

lmspear

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 169 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:15 PM

I keep wondering if any of the personnel at the US embassy was consulted by, or could have helped, Womack about the tax issues or how things work in Russian institutions.  It's hard to believe that she was so blinded by her art that she was only listening to people on the inside and never went for a reality check from anybody without a stake in the Bolshoi Ballet.



#109 abatt

abatt

    Sapphire Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,676 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:21 PM

She (or, more likely her parents) should have worked out the tax issues and payment terms before she ever agreed to work there. 



#110 puppytreats

puppytreats

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 751 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:32 PM

It is usually considered a bad career move to complain about one's employers through social media that can be seen by one's employer. (There are companies that ask potential employees for their Facebook passwords -- a breach of the Facebook's T&C's -- so that they can read private posts -- while Twitter is all public-facing.) If a first year went to the NYT to say that the only reason he or she wasn't put on a trial was that s/he was expected to pay $10K for the opportunity, I would think his or her employer would consider that bad enough to fire the first year and possibly respond through the courts. Being interviewed for an article on what a lawyer's first year was like, not so much. Womack didn't just complain about having to stand on one foot for six minutes during Act II of "Swan Lake" in the course of a standard interview. She made a number of accusations to the press about her employer.

Yes, which is why I find it odd that people then say her problem was that she was a small fish in a big pond, because it is not a big deal to complain about doing grunt work.  But if they want to sling mud against her accusation about the $10K, to make her unlikable and decrease her credibility, then it makes more sense that they would say, "Well, she only had to pay because she is a small fish", because this might deflect attention from the illegality of the demand for payment.  Their suit would likewise be an unwise strategy (but a frequent s.o.p.) if she had said something truthful about her employer's demand for the $10K, since truth is a defense to a claim of defamation.



#111 puppytreats

puppytreats

    Gold Circle

  • Inactive Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 751 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:35 PM

I keep wondering if any of the personnel at the US embassy was consulted by, or could have helped, Womack about the tax issues or how things work in Russian institutions.  It's hard to believe that she was so blinded by her art that she was only listening to people on the inside and never went for a reality check from anybody without a stake in the Bolshoi Ballet.

Catherine stated above that the contracts describe taxes withheld.  I wonder if this happens in any other country.   I also wonder why a Russian employer would withhold U.S. taxes, regardless of any obligation on behalf of the taxpayer.  



#112 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,219 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:01 PM

But if they want to sling mud against her accusation about the $10K, to make her unlikable and decrease her credibility, then it makes more sense that they would say, "Well, she only had to pay because she is a small fish", because this might deflect attention from the illegality of the demand for payment.  Their suit would likewise be an unwise strategy (but a frequent s.o.p.) if she had said something truthful about her employer's demand for the $10K, since truth is a defense to a claim of defamation.

No one is saying she was told she had to pay $10K because she was a small fish in a big pond. Many of us have said that the reason she wasn't given prominent roles as a first year corps member was because she was a small fish in a big pond, and it is expected that small fish in big ponds get prominent roles slowly, as a rule. This was in response to her complaints that she was not being given roles fast enough and her action of asking a higher up how to get "prominent" roles; no one is putting words in her mouth that she was impatient.

No one is saying that she wasn't told she had to pay $10/K to get a role -- in some accounts, because she is an American -- or that she wasn't told to get a sponsor to lobby on her behalf if she wanted better roles. There is no proof that this person was making a serious rather than cynical comment, since she doesn't give context, and there is no proof that if this person was serious that this person was right. (Since there are no other Americans other than Hallberg, who presumably doesn't have to pay for roles, the going rate for Americans would be rather new.) Assuming that she would no longer respect this person, had he or she been the one soliciting the funds, her statement is hearsay anyway, since according to her own story, this made her leave in disgust, and she didn't pursue it.

The only way this can be proven one way or another is through an investigation: it is a rare person, let alone network of people, who extorts money and deposits it in an untraceable offshore account, for which there is no paper trail or for whom there is no hint of conspicuous consumption. If those sums were passing hands on a regular basis, there would be a trace of it, even if no one who was a party to the transaction -- which she has not said she was -- was willing to come forward to give detailed accounts of how they participated/were victimized in this illegal extortion.

No one is saying that a man didn't offer to be her sponsor in exchange for sex.
 

Catherine stated above that the contracts describe taxes withheld.  I wonder if this happens in any other country.   I also wonder why a Russian employer would withhold U.S. taxes, regardless of any obligation on behalf of the taxpayer.

The US is one of the few countries on the planet that requires its citizens to file tax returns regardless of where they are resident. The other country cannot determine whether the US citizen is liable for taxes: it is up to the citizen to file a return and show the US government that he or she owes no tax. (Up to a certain amount of specific types of income is non-taxable; above that amount and for other types of income, the citizen has to claim a tax credit against taxes paid in the other country[ies], and if the US tax is higher, pay the difference to US Treasury). Other countries withhold taxes from US citizens through tax treaties.

A French citizen, for example, working and resident in Russia does not need to file a return in France for monies earned in Russia, because, by definition, s/he doesn't owe any, and hence, there is no agreement between Russia and France to enforce any withholding on behalf of the French government.



#113 writer

writer

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:35 PM

 

[from writer]
All sorts of professions have this same type of problem. Take a big New York law firm for example. Every attorney there would have been top of her class at an Ivy league law school. You think she's going to be doing high profile trials after her first year?  That doesn't mean she isn't smart or has the potential to grow, but it means she is a first year and will be treated like all the other first years in the firm.[/color]

Gosh, does any first year in a big firm do anything other than review documents in a conference room or sit  in a library doing research?  Who on earth would expect to let a first year, untrained and billing at the lowest rate, conduct a trial?  I can't even imagine wanting to do such a thing.

 

 

All of the dancers in that company bust their butts day after day, year after year. The reality is the vast majority of dancers will spend their entire career in the corps. Dancers that were all likely the star of their own graduation performance. That goes for every single company in the world, big or small.  Is that fair? no. Is it wrong she desires solos? Not at all. But there aren't enough roles and too many dancers.



#114 tutu

tutu

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:49 PM

Is it wrong she desires solos? Not at all. But there aren't enough roles and too many dancers.

 

 

I think part of the issue may be that she was treated differently almost as soon as she was put in the company, to hear her tell it. Around 21:00-23:00 of the Ballet Initiative podcast are quite revealing: she describes it "almost being harder" because she wasn't put in the corps, but was given soloist roles immediately. 

 

It's possible that they didn't cast her in the roles they'd asked her to learn, but it seems it wasn't quite a case of her waiting to be noticed in the back of the corps.



#115 writer

writer

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:02 PM

And while we are speaking of ethics, she admitted to entering into a sham marriage. Not as bad as demanding sexual favors or bribes, but it seems like she was willing to take extreme steps.

 

As a side note, under US law entering into a sham marriage to obtain legal status is considered immigration fraud and is a federal crime. I don't know anything about Russian immigration law, but I am concerned that she is advertising the fact that she entered into an marriage for the sole purpose of obtaining legal status.



#116 Fraildove

Fraildove

    Senior Member

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 103 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 05:01 PM

I had posted this on the sister site, but never got
A direct response and thought I would re-post here:

The question that keeps coming to my mind is this: She danced a solo role in Nutcracker (Spanish) and it was not reviewed particularly well by friends I have in Moscow who I trust and are professionals. I assume she didn't pay $10,000 to dance this role??? So was the supposed bribe asked for after the unsatisfactory performance or in conjunction with it? While I have a lot of respect for Joy Womack, somehow this just doesn't make much sense to me. Same with her marriage. Maybe it was a sham, but photos she herself posted on Facebook looked very different. Maybe there is something being lost in translation. I know from my own dealings in ballet that things are not always on the up and up, but blaming an originization for choices you made seem childish. If she did marry for citizenship, she had a choice, she wasn't forced. I think, unfortunately for her, she was young and immature and not completely prepaired to deal with the consequences of her own decisions. Just my opinion.

#117 Helene

Helene

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,219 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 05:24 PM

Part of establishing that a marriage isn't a sham is having a trail of photos, documents, notes, etc., and social media makes that very easy. She married the son of Filin's assistant*, someone she knew, and someone with whom she might have been friends.

In more formal and less digital times, it would have taken more work and a big phone bill.

 

* See correction below.  She married a former student.


Edited by Helene, 20 November 2013 - 09:18 PM.
So that someone reading it for the first time wouldn't be misled by my mistake


#118 writer

writer

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 06:01 PM

Part of establishing that a marriage isn't a sham is having a trail of photos, documents, notes, etc., and social media makes that very easy. She married the son of Filin's assistant, someone she knew, and someone with whom she might have been friends.

In more formal and less digital times, it would have taken more work and a big phone bill.

 

And a documentary all about your love doesn't hurt:  http://searchingperfection.com/

 

I hope for the boy's sake he was in on the ruse :(

 

She's blown her cover now, but maybe it doesn't matter as much under Russian law (US law has no statute of limitations for prosecution of immigration fraud, let's hope this is not the case over there).

 

This whole situation is puzzling. I had no idea it was the son of FIlin's assistant. So does this mean she is aligned with him? I thought was was on the Tsikaridze side. I can't keep up with this. 



#119 Jayne

Jayne

    Gold Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 870 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:12 PM

I thought the son married Smirnova.  That is in the testimony on Ismene Brown's blog, anyway:

 

http://www.ismeneb.c...statements.html

 

Filin's personal assistant, Dilyara Timegarzina...dismissed allegations that Filin was operating a casting couch with ballerinas, including rising star Olga Smirnova - who, as she said, is in fact married to her own son. 

 



#120 vagansmom

vagansmom

    Silver Circle

  • Senior Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 543 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 07:17 PM

Does anybody know the veracity of whether or not Womack was given a red diploma and how common that is at the Bolshoi? Who else might have gotten one and how is that dancer faring? 




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


Help support Ballet Alert! and Ballet Talk for Dancers year round by using this search box for your amazon.com purchases (adblockers may block display):